tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:57:40 +0000energyEconomicscommoditiesecologyextinctionindustrialprosperitysolarspeculationLight on the EarthThis web site will show you how to live lightly on the Earth by using solar energy. Our mission is to accelerate the transition to solar energy.http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)Blogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-3295007392512535649Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:43:00 +00002017-11-21T05:43:35.639-10:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><h1 class="headline" id="headline"><span style="font-size: large;">Peace, equality and prosperity all depend on affordable clean energy, study shows</span></h1><h1 class="headline" id="headline"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">The UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals are aimed at achieving equality, securing global peace and ending extreme poverty -- an ambitious agenda that will require a wide-range of conditions to be met. But one requirement lies at the center of most of the SDGs: that people have access to clean, affordable energy, says a new study with Francesco Fuso Nerini, Assistant Professor in the Division of Energy Systems Analysis at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, as lead author.</span></span></h1><div id="text">By analyzing the SDGs and their related targets, researchers found that access to clean and affordable energy is at the heart of around two-thirds of these targets -- ranging from ending discrimination against women to ending poverty.<br /> The paper, published in <em>Nature Energy</em>, found that energy is central in achieving a peaceful and sustainable future.<br /> "Access to food, clean water, sanitation, education, technology and healthcare are all underpinned by affordable and clean energy," says Fuso Nerini. "For example, electricity access is needed in schools and homes in order for all girls and boys to have access to free, equitable and good-quality primary and secondary education."<br /> As UN member nations have committed to implement the goals by 2030, the research suggests that far greater emphasis should be placed on considering cross-sectoral dynamics between energy, water, food, gender and education when considering wider public policy goals.<br /> The research was undertaken by the University College London Energy &amp; Development group, a group of researchers and academics at UCL who work on issues related to energy in low and middle-income countries.<br /> Yacob Mulugetta, paper coauthor and Professor of Energy and Development Policy at University College London, said:<br /> "This paper helps us think through the place of energy across our economic and social systems, and by extension, helps us understand our relationship with our environment. By exploring these interdependencies, this paper argues that the transition to a clean energy future cannot be separated from the important goal of building a fairer and more just society."<br /> Since its founding in 1827, KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm has grown to become one of Europe's leading technical and engineering universities, as well as a key centre of intellectual talent and innovation. KTH is Sweden's largest technical research and learning institution and home to students, researchers and faculty from around the world dedicated to advancing knowledge.<br /> </div><hr class="hidden-sm hidden-xs" /> <strong>Story Source:</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=181072&amp;CultureCode=en" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Materials</a> provided by <a href="https://www.kth.se/en" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><strong>KTH The Royal Institute of Technology</strong></a>.<br /><br /><strong>Journal Reference</strong>:<br /> <ol class="journal"><li>Francesco Fuso Nerini, Julia Tomei, Long Seng To, Iwona Bisaga, Priti Parikh, Mairi Black, Aiduan Borrion, Catalina Spataru, Vanesa Castán Broto, Gabrial Anandarajah, Ben Milligan, Yacob Mulugetta. <strong>Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals</strong>. <em>Nature Energy</em>, 2017; DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5</a>&nbsp; </li></ol><br /><br /><br /><h1 class="headline" id="headline"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">&nbsp;</span> </span></h1></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2017/11/peace-equality-and-prosperity-all.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-5051775488006803864Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:39:00 +00002017-08-24T05:39:40.487-10:00100% Renewables by 2050 can be achieved<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170823121339.htm<br /><h1 class="headline" id="headline"><span style="font-size: large;">How 139 countries could be powered by 100 percent wind, water, and solar energy by 2050</span></h1><dl class="dl-horizontal dl-custom"><dt>Date:</dt><dd id="date_posted">August 23, 2017</dd><dt>Source:</dt><dd id="source">Cell Press</dd><dt>Summary:</dt><dd id="abstract">The latest roadmap to a 100 percent renewable energy future outlines infrastructure changes that 139 countries can make to be entirely powered by wind, water, and sunlight by 2050 after electrification of all energy sectors. Such a transition could mean less worldwide energy consumption due to the efficiency of clean, renewable electricity; and a net increase of over 24 million long-term jobs.&nbsp;</dd><dd id="abstract">&nbsp;</dd><dd id="abstract"><div class="hyphenate" id="story_photo"> <div class="photo-image"><img alt="" class="img-responsive center-block" data-target="#myModal" data-toggle="modal" height="" src="https://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2017/08/170823121339_1_540x360.jpg" title="Click to enlarge" width="" /></div><div class="photo-caption">This infographic represents the roadmaps developed by Jacobson et al for 139 countries to use 100 percent wind-water-solar in all energy sectors by 2050.</div><div class="photo-credit"><em>Credit: The Solutions Project</em></div></div><div class="lead" id="first">The latest roadmap to a 100% renewable energy future from Stanford's Mark Z. Jacobson and 26 colleagues is the most specific global vision yet, outlining infrastructure changes that 139 countries can make to be entirely powered by wind, water, and sunlight by 2050 after electrification of all energy sectors. Such a transition could mean less worldwide energy consumption due to the efficiency of clean, renewable electricity; a net increase of over 24 million long-term jobs; an annual decrease in 4-7 million air pollution deaths per year; stabilization of energy prices; and annual savings of over $20 trillion in health and climate costs. The work appears August 23 in the journal <em>Joule</em>, Cell Press's new publication focused on sustainable energy.</div><div id="text">The challenge of moving the world toward a low-carbon future in time to avoid exacerbating global warming and to create energy self-sufficient countries is one of the greatest of our time. The roadmaps developed by Jacobson's group provide one possible endpoint. For each of the 139 nations, they assess the raw renewable energy resources available to each country, the number of wind, water, and solar energy generators needed to be 80% renewable by 2030 and 100% by 2050, how much land and rooftop area these power sources would require (only around 1% of total available, with most of this open space between wind turbines that can be used for multiple purposes), and how this approach would reduce energy demand and cost compared with a business-as-usual scenario.<br /> "Both individuals and governments can lead this change. Policymakers don't usually want to commit to doing something unless there is some reasonable science that can show it is possible, and that is what we are trying to do," says Jacobson, director of Stanford University's Atmosphere and Energy Program and co-founder of the Solutions Project, a U.S. non-profit educating the public and policymakers about a transition to 100% clean, renewable energy. "There are other scenarios. We are not saying that there is only one way we can do this, but having a scenario gives people direction."<br /> The analyses specifically examined each country's electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industrial, and agriculture/forestry/fishing sectors. Of the 139 countries -- selected because they were countries for which data were publically available from the International Energy Agency and collectively emit over 99% of all carbon dioxide worldwide -- the places the study showed that had a greater share of land per population (e.g., the United States, China, the European Union) are projected to have the easiest time making the transition to 100% wind, water, and solar. Another learning was that the most difficult places to transition may be highly populated, very small countries surrounded by lots of ocean, such as Singapore, which may require an investment in offshore solar to convert fully.<br /> As a result of a transition, the roadmaps predict a number of collateral benefits. For example, by eliminating oil, gas, and uranium use, the energy associated with mining, transporting and refining these fuels is also eliminated, reducing international power demand by around 13%. Because electricity is more efficient than burning fossil fuels, demand should go down another 23%. The changes in infrastructure would also mean that countries wouldn't need to depend on one another for fossil fuels, reducing the frequency of international conflict over energy. Finally, communities currently living in energy deserts would have access to abundant clean, renewable power.<br /> "Aside from eliminating emissions and avoiding 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming and beginning the process of letting carbon dioxide drain from the Earth's atmosphere, transitioning eliminates 4-7 million air pollution deaths each year and creates over 24 million long-term, full-time jobs by these plans," Jacobson says. "What is different between this study and other studies that have proposed solutions is that we are trying to examine not only the climate benefits of reducing carbon but also the air pollution benefits, job benefits, and cost benefits"<br /> The <em>Joule</em> paper is an expansion of 2015 roadmaps to transition each of the 50 United States to 100% clean, renewable energy and an analysis of whether the electric grid can stay stable upon such a transition. Not only does this new study cover nearly the entire world, there are also improved calculations on the availability of rooftop solar energy, renewable energy resources, and jobs created versus lost.<br /> The 100% clean, renewable energy goal has been criticized by some for focusing only on wind, water, and solar energy and excluding nuclear power, "clean coal," and biofuels. However, the researchers intentionally exclude nuclear power because of its 10-19 years between planning and operation, its high cost, and the acknowledged meltdown, weapons proliferation, and waste risks. "Clean coal" and biofuels are neglected because they both cause heavy air pollution, which Jacobson and coworkers are trying to eliminate, and emit over 50 times more carbon per unit of energy than wind, water, or solar power.<br /> The 100% wind, water, solar studies have also been questioned for depending on some technologies such as underground heat storage in rocks, which exists only in a few places, and the proposed use of electric and hydrogen fuel cell aircraft, which exist only in small planes at this time. Jacobson counters that underground heat storage is not required but certainly a viable option since it is similar to district heating, which provides 60% of Denmark's heat. He also says that space shuttles and rockets have been propelled with hydrogen, and aircraft companies are now investing in electric airplanes. Wind, water, and solar can also face daily and seasonal fluctuation, making it possible that they could miss large demands for energy, but the new study refers to a new paper that suggests these stability concerns can be addressed in several ways.<br /> These analyses have also been criticized for the massive investment it would take to move a country to the desired goal. Jacobson says that the overall cost to society (the energy, health, and climate cost) of the proposed system is one-fourth of that of the current fossil fuel system. In terms of upfront costs, most of these would be needed in any case to replace existing energy, and the rest is an investment that far more than pays itself off over time by nearly eliminating health and climate costs.<br /> "It appears we can achieve the enormous social benefits of a zero-emission energy system at essentially no extra cost," says co-author Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley. "Our findings suggest that the benefits are so great that we should accelerate the transition to wind, water, and solar, as fast as possible, by retiring fossil-fuel systems early wherever we can."<br /> "This paper helps push forward a conversation within and between the scientific, policy, and business communities about how to envision and plan for a decarbonized economy," writes Mark Dyson of Rocky Mountain Institute, in an accompanying preview of the paper. "The scientific community's growing body of work on global low-carbon energy transition pathways provides robust evidence that such a transition can be accomplished, and a growing understanding of the specific levers that need to be pulled to do so. Jacobson et al.'s present study provides sharper focus on one scenario, and refines a set of priorities for near-term action to enable it."<br /> </div><hr class="hidden-sm hidden-xs" /><div id="story_source"> <strong>Story Source:</strong><br /> Materials provided by <a href="http://www.cellpress.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><strong>Cell Press</strong></a>. <em>Note: Content may be edited for style and length.</em><br /> </div><hr /><div id="journal_references"><strong>Journal References</strong>:<br /> <ol class="journal"><li>Jacobson et al. <strong>100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World</strong>. <em>Joule</em>, 2017 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.07.005" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">10.1016/j.joule.2017.07.005</a></li><li>Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi, Guillaume Bazouin, Zack A. F. Bauer, Christa C. Heavey, Emma Fisher, Sean B. Morris, Diniana J. Y. Piekutowski, Taylor A. Vencill, Tim W. Yeskoo. <strong>100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States</strong>. <em>Energy Environ. Sci.</em>, 2015; 8 (7): 2093 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C5EE01283J" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">10.1039/C5EE01283J</a></li><li>Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi, Mary A. Cameron, Bethany A. Frew. <strong>Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes</strong>. <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em>, 2015; 112 (49): 15060 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510028112" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">10.1073/pnas.1510028112</a></li></ol><hr /></div>&nbsp;</dd></dl></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2017/08/100-renewables-by-2050-can-be-achieved.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-2342857405145279796Wed, 04 Jan 2017 18:23:00 +00002017-11-21T16:26:34.937-10:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><h1 class="headline" id="headline"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-size: small;">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170103152452.htm</span>&nbsp;</span></h1><h1 class="headline" id="headline"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Tenfold jump in green tech needed to meet global emissions targets</span></h1><h2 class="subtitle" id="subtitle">Green innovations must be developed and spread globally 10 times faster than in the past if we are to limit warming to below the Paris Agreement's 2 degrees C target</h2><dl class="dl-horizontal dl-custom"><dt>Date:</dt><dd id="date_posted">January 3, 2017</dd><dt>Source:</dt><dd id="source">Duke University</dd><dt>Summary:</dt><dd id="abstract">The global spread of green technologies must quicken significantly to avoid future rebounds in climate-warming emissions, a new study shows. Based on the new calculations, the Paris Agreement's warming target of 2 degrees C won't be met unless clean technologies are developed and implemented at rates 10 times faster than in the past. Radically new strategies to implement technological advances are needed. </dd><dt class="no-print">Share:</dt><dd class="no-print"><div id="share_top"></div></dd></dl><div class="fullstory">FULL STORY</div><hr class="hr-fullstory" /><div class="hyphenate" id="story_photo"><div class="photo-image"><img alt="" class="img-responsive center-block" data-target="#myModal" data-toggle="modal" height="" src="https://images.sciencedaily.com/2017/01/170103152452_1_540x360.jpg" title="Click to enlarge" width="" /></div><div class="photo-caption">Models of future CO2 emissions and temperature changes show the Paris Agreement's warming target of 2oC won't be met unless clean technologies are developed and implemented at rates 10 times faster than in the past to avoid future CO2 emissions.</div><div class="photo-credit"><i>Credit: Duke University</i></div></div><div class="lead" id="first">The global spread of green technologies must quicken significantly to avoid future rebounds in greenhouse gas emissions, a new Duke University study shows.</div><div id="text">"Based on our calculations, we won't meet the climate warming goals set by the Paris Agreement unless we speed up the spread of clean technology by a full order of magnitude, or about ten times faster than in the past," said Gabriele Manoli, a former postdoctoral associate at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, who led the study.<br />"Radically new strategies to implement technological advances on a global scale and at unprecedented rates are needed if current emissions goals are to be achieved," Manoli said.<br />The study used delayed differential equations to calculate the pace at which global per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide have increased since the Second Industrial Revolution -- a period of rapid industrialization at the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th. The researchers then compared this pace to the speed of new innovations in low-carbon-emitting technologies.<br />Using these historical trends coupled with projections of future global population growth, Manoli and his colleagues were able to estimate the likely pace of future emissions increases and also determine the speed at which climate-friendly technological innovation and implementation must occur to hold warming below the Paris Agreement's 2o C target.<br />"It's no longer enough to have emissions-reducing technologies," he said. "We must scale them up and spread them globally at unprecedented speeds."<br />The researchers published their peer-reviewed findings December 29 in the open-access journal <i>Earth's Future</i>.<br />The analysis shows that per-capita CO<sub>2</sub> emissions have increased about 100 percent every 60 years -- typically in big jumps -- since the Second Industrial Revolution. This "punctuated growth" has occurred largely because of time lags in the spread of emission-curbing technological advances, which are compounded by the effects of rapid population growth.<br />"Sometimes these lags are technical in nature, but -- as recent history amply demonstrates -- they also can be caused by political or economic barriers," Manoli explained. "Whatever the cause, our quantification of the delays historically associated with such challenges shows that a tenfold acceleration in the spread of green technologies is now necessary to cause some delay in the Doomsday Clock."<br />Manoli, who is now on the research staff at ETH Zurich's Institute of Environmental Engineering, conducted the new study with Gabriel G. Katul, the Theodore S. Coile Professor of Hydrology and Micrometeorology, and Marco Marani, professor of ecohydrology. Katul and Marani are faculty members at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment with secondary appointments in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Duke's Pratt School of Engineering.</div><hr /><div id="story_source"><b>Story Source:</b><br /><a href="https://nicholas.duke.edu/about/news/tenfold-jump-green-tech-needed-meet-global-emissions-targets" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Materials</a> provided by <a href="http://www.duke.edu/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><b>Duke University</b></a>. <i>Note: Content may be edited for style and length.</i></div><hr /><div id="journal_references"><b>Journal Reference</b>:<br /><ol class="journal"><li>Gabriele Manoli, Gabriel G. Katul, Marco Marani. <b>Delay-induced Rebounds in CO2 Emissions and Critical Time-Scales to Meet Global Warming Targets</b>. <i>Earth's Future</i>, 2016 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eft2.2016EF000431" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">10.1002/eft2.2016EF000431</a></li></ol><hr /></div></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2017/01/httpswww.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-6487847125218125454Sat, 21 Sep 2013 01:49:00 +00002013-09-20T16:12:46.075-10:00Help Me to Save the Planet<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div>Help me to save the planet. I know that sounds like an extreme statement, but the climate problems we are now confronting everywhere in the world call for bold action.<br /><br />We do not have to self-destruct in an endless cycle of the pollution of land, air and water. What can be done? What can you do?<br /><br />At this moment, everywhere in the world where electricity costs more than 22 cents/kWh, like California and many other states as well as Germany and Japan, it is already cheaper to install integrated solar PV systems with batteries for your electricity needs. I know, because this is my work. Now, I am looking for finance to manufacture and deploy <b>SunPax</b>, a micro integrated PV module with all power control electronics, 20+ year batteries and a micro-computer to monitor and control all functions. The costs of these components already allows a profitable product to be built and distributed. Please look at a synopsis of <b>SunPax</b> at<a href="http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/p/shedding-light-on-solar.html"> http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/p/shedding-light-on-solar.html </a><br /><br />I have been living off the grid for most of the past 30 years, as I am now. I have never had a power outage. I have discovered the solution that can save our planet from climate catastrophe while also providing affordable electricity and user-friendliness. I have been working with an eminent scientist to do all the analysis and to make sure I have not overlooked any hidden factors. Well, the word is in - <b>SunPax</b> is the solution. I am not some inventor claiming some kind of "free-energy" device. I have a Masters Degree in Business and have been designing, building, installing and using such integrated solar energy systems for 30 years. But now is the time to take the next step - micro-integration of all the components.<br /><br />However, I have thus far been unable to make contact with visionary investors capable of providing the relatively mid-range business investment required to bring this product to market. So if we want to save the world, it is going to be up to us.<br /><br />It is calculated that there are only six people that separate us from each and every person in the world, if we only knew the way to connect the dots. I need to find my way to people who have financial resources and care about the fate of the world. You can help by&nbsp;forwarding this message to all the people you know who want this energy madness to stop. <br /><br />Please go to my web log post listed above and you will see that I am a very serious person. I can be contacted at the email address at the bottom of the <b>SunPax </b>description. Anyone with any ideas is welcome to submit them to me. I also have detailed technical analysis and business projections to demonstrate this is not some flight of fancy. Please help if you can!<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Henw0Bjb6n8/Uj0AGeDj4nI/AAAAAAAAAXI/VM8dPXOY1zE/s1600/Jon2011.Sm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Henw0Bjb6n8/Uj0AGeDj4nI/AAAAAAAAAXI/VM8dPXOY1zE/s1600/Jon2011.Sm.jpg" /></a></div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4xyEdrlZIkQ/Ujz5CWFaljI/AAAAAAAAAW4/vaWuDvhlwFE/s1600/Jon2011.Sm.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><br />Jonathan Cole - Founder - Light on the Earth Systems</div></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2013/09/help-me-to-save-planet.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-6288576328479568902Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:08:00 +00002013-09-18T08:08:01.466-10:00Saving the World from Climate Catastrophe<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div><h1 class="story" id="headline"><span style="font-size: medium;">Clean Energy Least Costly to Power America's Electricity Needs</span></h1><div id="story" style="padding-bottom: 10px;"><div id="first"><span class="date">Sep. 17, 2013</span> — Findings show carbon pollution from power plants can be cut cost-effectively by using wind, solar and natural gas</div><div id="text">It's less costly to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels than coal-fired power plants when climate change costs and other health impacts are factored in, according to a new study published in Springer's Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.<br /> In fact -- using the official U.S. government estimates of health and environmental costs from burning fossil fuels -- the study shows it's cheaper to replace a typical existing coal-fired power plant with a wind turbine than to keep the old plant running. And new electricity generation from wind could be more economically efficient than natural gas.<br /> The findings show the nation can cut carbon pollution from power plants in a cost-effective way, by replacing coal-fired generation with cleaner options like wind, solar, and natural gas.<br /> "Burning coal is a very costly way to make electricity. There are more efficient and sustainable ways to get power," said Dr. Laurie Johnson, chief economist in the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We can reduce health and climate change costs while reducing the dangerous carbon pollution driving global warming."<br /> Johnson co-authored the study, "The Social Cost of Carbon: Implications for Modernizing our Electricity System," with Chris Hope of the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge; and Starla Yeh in NRDC's Center for Market Innovation. Power plants are the nation's single largest source of such pollution, accounting for 40 percent of our national carbon footprint.<br /> "And yet, there are no federal limits on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants may release," said Johnson. "That's wrong. It doesn't make sense. It's putting our future at risk. We limit the amount of mercury, arsenic, soot, and other harmful pollution from these plants. It's time to cut this carbon pollution."<br /> President Obama has vowed to do that, using his authority under the Clean Air Act to set the first federal limits on the amount of carbon pollution power plants may release. Critics claim that could raise costs. But, in fact, it can reduce the total cost of electricity generation, the new study finds.<br /> Carbon pollution imposes economic costs by damaging public health and driving destructive climate change. Working together, the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Treasury Department, the Department of Energy and eight other federal agencies put a dollar value on those damages, in an official figure called the "social cost of carbon" (SCC).<br /> The SCC is used to calculate the benefits (i.e., avoided climate damages) of carbon pollution reduction. The administration puts the best estimate at $33 per ton of carbon pollution emitted in 2010.<br /> The study also included government damage estimates from sulfur dioxide, a pollutant released simultaneously with carbon. Every year, sulfur dioxide causes thousands of premature deaths, respiratory ailments, heart disease and a host of ecosystem damages.<br /> "Already, climate change is contributing to record heat waves, floods, drought, wildfires and severe storms," Johnson said. Such extreme weather caused more than $140 billion in damages in 2012. American taxpayers picked up nearly $100 billion of those costs, according to an NRDC report released in May, 2013.<br /> "These damages are only likely to increase if nothing is done to reduce carbon pollution," concluded Johnson.</div></div><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130917124817.htm">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130917124817.htm</a></div></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2013/09/saving-world-from-climate-catastrophe.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-264735331117149130Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:34:00 +00002013-08-14T07:41:40.396-10:00Giant Solar Wave On Its Way<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div><br /><br /><header><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/chart-2-3rds-of-global-solar-pv-has-been-connected-in-the-last-2.5-years">Chart: 2/3rds of Global Solar PV Has Been Installed in the Last 2.5 Years</a></span>&nbsp;</h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;">And capacity will nearly double in the next 2.5 years.</span></h1><h6>Stephen Lacey: August 13, 2013</h6></header><div class="article-body">If you want to understand why people so often compare deployment trends in solar photovoltaics (PV) to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law" target="_blank">Moore's law</a> in computing, consider this statistic: two-thirds of all solar PV capacity in place worldwide has been installed since January 2011.<br />Let's put that into perspective. It took nearly four decades to install 50 gigawatts of PV capacity worldwide. But in the last 2 1/2 years, the industry jumped from 50 gigawatts of PV capacity to just over 100 gigawatts. At the same time, global module prices have fallen 62 percent since January 2011.<br />Even more amazingly, the solar industry is on track to install another 100 gigawatts worldwide by 2015 -- nearly doubling solar capacity in the next 2 1/2 years.<br />Those statistics and the chart below, courtesy of <a href="http://www.gtmresearch.com/" target="_blank">GTM Research</a> Senior Analyst MJ Shiao, illustrate the exponential growth in the global PV market.<br /><img alt="" height="333" src="http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/articles/Cumulative_global_PV_to_1H_2013_580_333.png" width="580" /><br /><i>Source:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/research" target="_blank">GTM Research</a></i><br />And as Shiao's second chart below shows, the U.S. distributed solar market is on pretty much the same growth trajectory. More than two-thirds of America's distributed PV (everything except for utility-scale projects) has been installed since January 2011. And by 2015, the country's distributed PV market is expected to jump by more than 200 percent.<br /><img alt="" height="333" src="http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/articles/Cumulative_US_DG_PV_to_1H_2013_580_333.png" width="580" /><br /><i>Chart: <a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/research/ussmi" target="_blank">GTM Research/SEIA U.S. Solar Market Insight</a></i><br />There are a few key takeaways from these figures.<br />First, utilities still dismissing solar as inconsequential or "cute" may soon be in for a <a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/can-the-utility-industry-survive-the-energy-transition" target="_blank">rude awakening</a>. According to the <i>Solar Market Insight</i> report from GTM Research and SEIA, the national average for residential system prices fell another 18 percent last year; non-residential prices fell 13.3 percent.<br />The falling cost and price of installation is starting to open up new markets without incentives. As Shayle Kann, vice president of GTM Research, <a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-coming-u.s.-distributed-solar-boom" target="_blank">pointed out recently</a>, roughly 3,000 residential solar systems were installed in California without the use of any state incentives in the first quarter of this year.<br />"This is emblematic of a sea change in the solar industry, and even more importantly, in the energy industry," wrote Kann.<br />But this rapid increase in installations won't create challenges for just utilities -- it will also create challenges for the solar industry itself. Since the solar market is still at the beginning of a steep growth curve, it's hard to say whether the business models and technologies we know today are going to be successful in the future.<br />This will likely mean more bankruptcies and more consolidation. It will also test the reliability of products operating in the field.<br />Because two-thirds of PV capacity in the field today was only installed in the last couple of years, a majority of the products are still very new. Solar is a multi-decade investment, and there is uncertainty around how new hardware will perform over the long term, explained Shiao.<br />"We're really at the beginning stages of understanding PV in terms of products in the field, viable business models, and effects on the grid, especially when you consider that PV is being sold many times as a twenty-year asset. Now is the time to look deeper into issues surrounding product reliability, market sustainability and O&amp;M business models."<br />The boom in distributed solar is underway. And we've only just begun to understand the implications.<br /><a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/chart-2-3rds-of-global-solar-pv-has-been-connected-in-the-last-2.5-years">http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/chart-2-3rds-of-global-solar-pv-has-been-connected-in-the-last-2.5-years&nbsp; </a></div></div></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2013/08/chart-23rds-of-global-solar-pv-has-been.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-439689339745187438Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:35:00 +00002013-07-26T01:36:16.424-10:00Climate Time Bomb - Rapid Deployment of Solar Needed<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><h1 class="story" id="headline"><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724134256.htm"><span style="font-size: large;">Cost of Arctic Methane Release Could Be 'Size of Global Economy', Experts Warn</span></a></h1><div id="first"><span class="date">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724134256.htm </span></div><div id="first"><span class="date">July 24, 2013</span> — Researchers have warned of an "economic time-bomb" in the Arctic, following a ground-breaking analysis of the likely cost of methane emissions in the region.</div><div id="seealso"><br /></div><div id="text">Economic modelling shows that the methane emissions caused by shrinking sea ice from just one area of the Arctic could come with a global price tag of 60 trillion dollars -- the size of the world economy in 2012.<br />Writing in a Comment piece in the journal, <i>Nature</i>, academics argue that a significant release of methane from thawing permafrost in the Arctic could have dire implications for the world's economy. The researchers, from Cambridge and Rotterdam, have for the first time calculated the potential economic impact of a scenario some scientists consider increasingly likely -- that methane from the East Siberian Sea will be emitted as a result of the thaw.<br /><br />This constitutes just a fraction of the vast reservoirs of methane in the Arctic, but scientists believe that the release of even a small proportion of these reserves could trigger possibly catastrophic climate change. According to the new assessment, the emission of methane below the East Siberian Sea alone would also have a mean global impact of 60 trillion dollars.<br /><br />The ground-breaking Comment piece was co-authored by Gail Whiteman, from Erasmus University; Chris Hope, Reader in Policy Modelling at Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge; and Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.<br />"The global impact of a warming Arctic is an economic time-bomb," Whiteman, who is Professor of sustainability, management and climate change at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (RSM), said.<br /><br />Wadhams added: "The imminent disappearance of the summer sea ice in the Arctic will have enormous implications for both the acceleration of climate change, and the release of methane from off-shore waters which are now able to warm up in the summer. This massive methane boost will have major implications for global economies and societies."<br /><br />Most discussion about the economic implications of a warming Arctic focuses on benefits to the region, with increased oil-and-gas drilling and the opening up of new shipping routes that could attract investments of hundreds of billions of dollars. However, the effects of melting permafrost on the climate and oceans will be felt globally, the authors argue.<br /><br />Applying an updated version of the modelling method used in the UK government's 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, and currently used by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the authors calculate the global consequences of the release of 50 gigatonnes of methane over a decade from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea.<br /><br />"The methane release would bring forward the date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2 degrees C by between 15 and 35 years," said Chris Hope. "In the absence of climate-change mitigation measures, the PAGE09 model calculates that it would increase mean global climate impacts by $60 trillion."<br />If other impacts such as ocean acidification are factored in, the cost would be much higher. Some 80% of these costs will be borne by developing countries, as they experience more extreme weather, flooding, droughts and poorer health, as Arctic warming affects climate.<br /><br />The research also explored the impact of a number of later, longer-lasting or smaller pulses of methane, and the authors write that, in all these cases, the economic cost for physical changes to the Arctic is "steep."<br />The authors write that global economic institutions and world leaders should "kick-start investment in rigorous economic modelling" and consider the impacts of a changing Arctic landscape as far outweighing any "short-term gains from shipping and extraction."<br /><br />They argue that economic discussions today are missing the big picture on Arctic change. "Arctic science is a strategic asset for human economies because the region drives critical effects in our biophysical, political and economic systems," write the academics. Neither the World Economic Forum nor the International Monetary Fund currently recognise the economic danger of Arctic change.<br /><br />According to Whiteman, "Global leaders and the WEF and IMF need to pay much more attention to this invisible time-bomb. The mean impacts of just this one effect -- $60 trillion -- approaches the $70-trillion value of the world economy in 2012."</div><br /><b>Story Source:</b><br /><blockquote>The above story is based on <a href="http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/cost-of-arctic-methane-release-could-be-size-of-global-economy-warn-experts" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">materials</a> provided by <a class="blue" href="http://www.cam.ac.uk/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><b><span id="source">University of Cambridge</span></b></a>. The original story is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons Licence</a>.<br /><i>Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.</i></blockquote><hr /><b>Journal Reference</b>:<br /><ol style="margin: 5px 0 5px 18px; padding: 0;"><li>Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope, Peter Wadhams. <b>Climate science: Vast costs of Arctic change</b>. <i>Nature</i>, 2013; 499 (7459): 401 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/499401a" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">10.1038/499401a</a></li></ol></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2013/07/climate-time-bomb.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-102742419744084833Thu, 11 Apr 2013 18:58:00 +00002013-04-11T09:02:03.722-10:00The Solar Evolution Already in the Pipeline<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /><header class="padding-bottom-x4"> <h1 class="headline"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/">&nbsp; http://grist.http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/</a></span></h1><h1 class="headline"></h1><h1 class="headline"><a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/"><span style="font-size: large;">Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities </span></a></h1><div class="byline">By <a href="http://grist.org/author/david-roberts/" title="Posts by David Roberts">David Roberts</a></div><br /><section class="article-body"> <figure class="grist-img-container alignright" id="attachment_170111" style="width: 250px;"><figcaption class="credit"><a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-113950426/stock-photo-photovoltaic-panels-solar-panel-to-produce-clean-sustainable-renewable-energy-alternative.html" title="image credit"></a></figcaption></figure><b>Solar power and other distributed renewable energy technologies could lay waste to U.S. power utilities and burn the utility business model, which has remained virtually unchanged for a century, to the ground. </b><br /> That is not wild-eyed hippie talk. It is the assessment of the <i>utilities themselves</i>.<br /> Back in January, the Edison Electric Institute — the (typically stodgy and backward-looking) trade group of U.S. investor-owned utilities — released a <a href="http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf">report</a> [PDF] that, as far as I can tell, went almost entirely without notice in the press. That’s a shame. It is one of the most prescient and brutally frank things I’ve ever read about the power sector. It is a rare thing to hear an industry tell the tale of its own incipient obsolescence.<br /> I’ve been thinking about how to convey to you, normal people with healthy social lives and no time to ponder the byzantine nature of the power industry, just what a big deal the coming changes are. They are nothing short of revolutionary … but rather difficult to explain without jargon.<br /> So, just a bit of background.<span id="more-169907"></span> You probably know that electricity is provided by utilities. Some utilities both generate electricity at power plants and provide it to customers over power lines. They are “regulated monopolies,” which means they have sole responsibility for providing power in their service areas. Some utilities have gone through deregulation; in that case, power generation is split off into its own business, while the utility’s job is to purchase power on competitive markets and provide it to customers over the grid it manages.<br /> This complexity makes it difficult to generalize about utilities … or to discuss them without putting people to sleep. But the main thing to know is that <i>the utility business model relies on selling power</i>. That’s how they make their money. Here’s how it works: A utility makes a case to a public utility commission (PUC), saying “we will need to satisfy <i>this</i> level of demand from consumers, which means we’ll need to generate (or purchase) <i>this</i> much power, which means we’ll need to charge <i>these</i> rates.” If the PUC finds the case persuasive, it approves the rates and guarantees the utility a reasonable return on its investments in power and grid upkeep.<br /> Thrilling, I know. The thing to remember is that it is in a utility’s financial interest to generate (or buy) and deliver as much power as possible. The higher the demand, the higher the investments, the higher the utility shareholder profits. In short, all things being equal, utilities want to sell more power. (All things are occasionally not equal, but we’ll leave those complications aside for now.)<br /> Now, into this cozy business model enters cheap distributed solar PV, which eats away at it like acid.<br /> First, the power generated by solar panels on residential or commercial roofs is not utility-owned or utility-purchased. From the utility’s point of view, every kilowatt-hour of rooftop solar looks like a kilowatt-hour of reduced demand for the utility’s product. Not something any business enjoys. (This is the same reason utilities are instinctively hostile to energy efficiency and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_response">demand response</a> programs, and why they must be compelled by regulations or subsidies to create them. Utilities don’t like reduced demand!)<br /> It’s worse than that, though. Solar power peaks at midday, which means it is strongest close to the point of highest electricity use — “peak load.” Problem is, providing power to meet peak load is where utilities make a huge chunk of their money. Peak power is the most expensive power. So when solar panels provide peak power, they aren’t just reducing demand, they’re reducing demand for the utilities’ <i>most valuable product</i>.<br /> But wait. Renewables are limited by the fact they are intermittent, right? “The sun doesn’t always shine,” etc. Customers will still have to rely on grid power for the most part. Right?<br /> This is a widely held article of faith, but EEI (of all places!) puts it to rest. (In this and all quotes that follow, “DER” means distributed energy resources, which for the most part means solar PV.)<br /> <blockquote>Due to the variable nature of renewable DER, there is a perception that customers will always need to remain on the grid. While we would expect customers to remain on the grid until a fully viable and economic distributed non-variable resource is available, <b>one can imagine a day when battery storage technology or micro turbines could allow customers to be electric grid independent</b>. To put this into perspective, who would have believed 10 years ago that traditional wire line telephone customers could economically “cut the cord?” [Emphasis mine.]</blockquote>Indeed! Just the other day, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-03-24/nrg-skirts-utilities-taking-solar-panels-to-u-s-rooftop.html">said</a>, “If the cost of solar panels keeps coming down, installation costs come down and if they combine solar with battery technology and a power management system, then we have someone just using [the grid] for backup.” What happens if a whole bunch of customers start generating their own power and using the grid merely as backup? The EEI report warns of “irreparable damages to revenues and growth prospects” of utilities.<br /> Utility investors are accustomed to large, long-term, reliable investments with a 30-year cost recovery — fossil fuel plants, basically. The cost of those investments, along with investments in grid maintenance and reliability, are spread by utilities across all ratepayers in a service area. What happens if a bunch of those ratepayers start reducing their demand or opting out of the grid entirely? Well, the same investments must now be spread over a smaller group of ratepayers. In other words: higher rates for those who haven’t switched to solar.<br /> That’s how it starts. These two paragraphs from the EEI report are a remarkable description of the path to obsolescence faced by the industry:<br /> <blockquote>The financial implications of these threats are fairly evident. Start with the increased cost of supporting a network capable of managing and integrating distributed generation sources. Next, under most rate structures, add the decline in revenues attributed to revenues lost from sales foregone. These forces lead to increased revenues required from remaining customers … and sought through rate increases. The result of higher electricity prices and competitive threats will encourage a higher rate of DER additions, or will promote greater use of efficiency or demand-side solutions.<br />Increased uncertainty and risk will not be welcomed by investors, who will seek a higher return on investment and force defensive-minded investors to reduce exposure to the sector. These competitive and financial risks would likely erode credit quality. The decline in credit quality will lead to a higher cost of capital, putting further pressure on customer rates. Ultimately, capital availability will be reduced, and this will affect future investment plans. The cycle of decline has been previously witnessed in technology-disrupted sectors (such as telecommunications) and other deregulated industries (airlines).</blockquote>Did you follow that? As ratepayers opt for solar panels (and other distributed energy resources like micro-turbines,&nbsp;batteries,&nbsp;<a href="http://grist.org/article/2009-07-14-smart-appliances-talk-to-grid/">smart appliances</a>, etc.), it raises costs on other ratepayers and hurts the utility’s credit rating. As rates rise on other ratepayers, the attractiveness of solar increases, so more opt for it. Thus costs on remaining ratepayers are even further increased, the utility’s credit even further damaged. It’s a vicious, self-reinforcing cycle:<br /> <figure class="grist-img-container aligncenter" id="attachment_169909" style="width: 470px;"><a class="cboxElement" href="http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/eei-disruptive-forces.jpg" rel="lightbox"><img alt="EEI: vicious cycle of disruptive forces" class="size-large wp-image-169909" height="323" src="http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/eei-disruptive-forces.jpg?w=470&amp;h=323" width="470" /></a><figcaption class="credit"><a href="http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf" title="image credit">EEI</a></figcaption></figure>One implication of all this — a poorly understood implication — is that rooftop solar fucks up the utility model <i>even at relatively low penetrations</i>, because it goes straight at utilities’ main profit centers. (It’s already happening in Germany.) Right now, distributed solar PV is a relatively tiny slice of U.S. electricity, less than 1 percent. For that reason, utility investors aren’t paying much attention. “Despite the risks that a rapidly growing level of DER penetration and other disruptive challenges may impose,” EEI writes, “they are not currently being discussed by the investment community and factored into the valuation calculus reflected in the capital markets.” But that 1 percent is concentrated in a small handful of utility districts, so trouble, at least for that first set of utilities, is just over the horizon. Utility investors are sleepwalking into a maelstrom.<br /> (“Despite all the talk about investors assessing the future in their investment evaluations,” the report notes dryly, “it is often not until revenue declines are reported that investors realize that the viability of the business is in question.” In other words, investors aren’t that smart and rational financial markets are a <a href="http://www.byjustinfox.com/the-myth-of-the-rational-market.html">myth</a>.)<br /> Bloomberg Energy Finance forecasts 22 percent compound annual growth in all solar PV, which means that by 2020 distributed solar (which will account for about 15 percent of total PV) could reach up to 10 percent of load in certain areas. If that happens, well:<br /> <blockquote>Assuming a decline in load, and possibly customers served, of 10 percent due to DER with full subsidization of DER participants, the average impact on base electricity prices for non-DER participants will be a 20 percent or more increase in rates, and the ongoing rate of growth in electricity prices will double for non-DER participants (before accounting for the impact of the increased cost of serving distributed resources).</blockquote>So rates would rise by 20 percent for those without solar panels. Can you imagine the political shitstorm that would create? (There are reasons to think EEI is exaggerating this effect, but we’ll get into that in the next post.)<br /> If nothing is done to check these trends, the U.S. electric utility as we know it could be utterly upended. The report compares utilities’ possible future to the experience of the airlines during deregulation or to the big monopoly phone companies when faced with upstart cellular technologies. In case the point wasn’t made, the report also analogizes utilities to the U.S. Postal Service, Kodak, and RIM, the maker of Blackberry devices. These are not meant to be flattering comparisons.<br /> Remember, too, that these utilities are not Google or Facebook. They are not accustomed to a state of constant market turmoil and reinvention. This is a venerable old boys network, working very comfortably within a business model that has been around, virtually unchanged, for a century. A friggin’ century, more or less without innovation, and now they’re supposed to scramble and be all hip and new-age? Unlikely.<br /> So what’s to be done? You won’t be surprised to hear that EEI’s prescription is mainly focused on preserving utilities and their familiar business model. But is that the best thing for electricity consumers? Is that the best thing for the climate?<br /> We’ll dig into those questions in my <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-can-we-boost-distributed-solar-and-save-utilities-at-the-same-time/">next post</a>.<br /><div class="right"><a class="next-prev-post-ui-text textright" href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-can-we-boost-distributed-solar-and-save-utilities-at-the-same-time/" title="How can we boost distributed solar and save utilities at the same time?"> How can we boost distributed solar and save utilities at the same time? </a> <a class="no-decoration next-prev-post-ui-nav" href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-can-we-boost-distributed-solar-and-save-utilities-at-the-same-time/" title="How can we boost distributed solar and save utilities at the same time?"> | Next <span class="ui-next-arrow-icon">&nbsp;</span> </a> </div><div class="span-4 append-2" id="left-gutter"><div class="comment-count-ui"><a class="comment-count no-hover" data-disqus-identifier="wp169907" href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/#disqus_thread" title="Jump to comments">8</a></div></div><br /> </section><div class="byline"><br /></div></header></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-solar-evolution-already-in-pipeline.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-4116236479869518383Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:53:00 +00002013-03-05T08:53:54.171-10:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div><h1><a href="http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24628"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Global Solar Hits Parity Next Year, No Subsidies Needed</span></span></a></h1><div style="float: right; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px;"><div id="azk99111"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="0px" src="http://engine.350media.com/i.gif?e=eyJ0cyI6MTM2MjQ2NDM0NTQ1MSwiYXYiOjEzNzkwLCJhdCI6NSwiY20iOjIwNDI2LCJjaCI6MTczOCwiY3IiOjUzODQ5LCJkbSI6MSwiZmMiOjc2OTI0LCJmbCI6MzkwNDgsImt3IjoidW5kZWZpbmVkIiwibnciOjg1LCJydiI6MCwicHIiOjUwNzIsInN0IjoxNzk2Niwiem4iOjc0ODl9&amp;s=i8kdcZvwcsdocGrLNd_HDCGDTmo" width="0px" /></span></div></div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Because of strong demand for rooftop solar forecast this year in key markets and&nbsp;further drops in pricing,&nbsp;Deutsche Bank believes the solar industry will&nbsp;transition from subsidized to sustainable in 2014. </span><div class="KonaBody"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The industry passed the <a href="http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24559" target="_blank">100 gigawatt (GW) threshold in 2012</a>&nbsp;and because of strong demand expected this year, the Bank expects solar to grow 20% - to 30 GW this year. <a href="http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24516" target="_blank">China, for example, is set for astounding growth.</a><br />By Jeff Spross </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Deutsche Bank just released new analyses concluding that the global solar market will become sustainable on its own terms by the end of 2014, no longer needing subsidies to continue performing. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The German-based bank said that rooftop solar is looking especially robust, and sees strong demand in solar markets in India, China, Britain, Germany,&nbsp;and the US. As a result, Deutsche Bank actually increased its forecast for solar demand in 2013 to 30 gigawatts - a 20% increase over 2012. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Here's <em>Renew Economy</em> <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/deutsche-sees-sustainable-global-solar-market-in-2014-2014">with a summary</a> of Deutsche Banks's logic: </span><br /> <blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The key for Deutsche is the emergence of unsubsidised markets in many key countries. It points, for instance, to India, where despite delays in the national solar program, huge demand for state based schemes has produced very competitive tenders, in the [12 cents per kilowatt hour] range. Given the country's high solar radiation profile and high electricity prices paid by industrial customers, it says several conglomerates are considering large scale implementation of solar for self consumption. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"Grid parity has been reached in India even despite the high cost of capital of around 10-12 percent," Deutsche Bank notes, and also despite a slight rise in module prices of [3 to 5 cents per kilowatt] in recent months (good for manufacturers). </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Italy is another country that appears to be at grid parity, where several developers are under advanced discussions to develop unsubsidized projects in Southern Italy. Deutsche Bank says that for small commercial enterprises that can achieve 50 percent or more self consumption, solar is competitive with grid electricity in most parts of Italy, and commercial businesses in Germany that have the load profile to achieve up to 90 percent self consumption are also finding solar as an attractive source of power generation. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Deutsche bank says demand expected in subsidised markets such as Japan and the UK, including Northern Ireland, is expected to be strong, the US is likely to introduce favourable legislation, including giving solar installations the same status as real estate investment trusts, strong pipelines in Africa and the Middle east, and unexpectedly strong demand in countries such as Mexico and Caribbean nations means that its forecasts for the year are likely to rise. </span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As <em>Renew Economy</em> <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/deutsche-sees-sustainable-global-solar-market-in-2014-2014">also points out</a>, this is the third report in the past month anticipating a bright future for the global solar market: UBS <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/ubs-boom-in-unsubsidised-solar-pv-flags-energy-revolution-60218">released a report</a> that concluded an "unsubsidized solar revolution" was in the works, "Thanks to significant cost reductions and rising retail tariffs, households and commercial users are set to install solar systems to reduce electricity bills - without any subsidies." And Macquarie Group <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/macquarie-says-rooftop-solar-juggernaut-is-unstoppable-40618">argued</a> that costs for rooftop solar in Germany have fallen so far that even with subsidy cuts "solar installations could continue at a torrid pace." </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Here in America, <a href="http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24361" target="_blank">solar power installations boomed over the course of 2011 and 2012</a>, even as the price of solar&nbsp;systems continued to plunge. To a large extent, the American solar boom has been driven by <a href="http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23584" target="_blank">third party leasing agreements</a> - which are heavily involved in rooftop installation. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Meanwhile, on the international scene, the cost of manufacturing solar panels in China is expected to drop to an all-new low of 42 cents per watt in 2015, and power generated from solar is predicted to undercut that produced by both coal and most forms of natural gas within a decade.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong><a href="http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24628">http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24628</a></strong></span></div></div></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2013/03/global-solar-hits-parity-next-year-no.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-8431877291438888422Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:46:00 +00002013-01-19T08:46:10.834-10:00Huge Solar Breakthrough!!!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div><h1 class="story" id="headline"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130118064733.htm"><span style="font-size: small;">&nbsp;http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130118064733.htm</span></a></span></h1><h1 class="story" id="headline"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130118064733.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130118064733.htm"><span style="font-size: large;">Thin Film Solar Cells: New World Record for Solar Cell Efficiency</span></a></span></h1><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><div class="story"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><img height="266" src="http://images.sciencedaily.com/2013/01/130118064733-large.jpg" style="opacity: 1;" width="400" /></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><div id="story" style="padding-bottom: 10px;"><div id="first"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="date">Jan. 18, 2013</span> — In a remarkable feat, scientists at Empa, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, have developed thin film solar cells on flexible polymer foils with a new record efficiency of 20.4% for converting sunlight into electricity. The cells are based on CIGS semiconducting material (copper indium gallium (di)selenide) known for its potential to provide cost-effective solar electricity. The technology is currently awaiting scale-up for industrial applications.</span></div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">To make solar electricity affordable on a large scale, scientists and engineers the world over have long been trying to develop a low-cost solar cell, which is both highly efficient and easy to manufacture with high throughput. Now a team at Empa's Laboratory for Thin Film and Photovoltaics, led by Ayodhya N. Tiwari, has made (yet another) leap ahead. They achieved a record 20.4% energy conversion efficiency for thin film CIGS solar cells on flexible polymer substrates, a massive improvement over the previous record of 18.7% achieved by the same team in May 2011. Tiwari’s team has been investigating and developing various thin film solar cell technologies for some time. Over the years the laboratory has boosted the photovoltaic conversion efficiency of flexible CIGS solar cells time and again, from 12.8% in 1999 – the group’s first world record – to 14.1% in 2005, 17.6% in 2010 and 18.7% in 2011.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Closing the efficiency gap to silicon wafer cells</strong></span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The latest in the series of records has been achieved, thanks to innovative ideas and excellent team work in the lab, especially by PhD students Adrian Chirila and Fabian Pianezzi. The team has succeeded in modifying the properties of the CIGS layer, grown at low temperatures, which absorbs light and contributes to the photo-current in solar cells. The cell efficiency value was independently certified by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) in Freiburg, Germany. What’s more, Empa’s new record efficiency for flexible solar cells now even exceeds the record value of 20.3% for CIGS solar cells on glass substrates – and equals the highest efficiencies for polycrystalline silicon wafer-based solar cells. "We have now – finally – managed to close the "efficiency gap" to solar cells based on polycrystalline silicon wafers or CIGS thin film cells on glass", says Tiwari.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Thin film, lightweight and flexible high-performance solar modules are attractive for numerous applications such as solar farms, roofs and facades of buildings, automobiles and portable electronics and can be produced using continuous roll-to-roll manufacturing processes that offer further cost reductions compared to standard silicon technologies. In other words, they have the potential to enable low-cost solar electricity in the near future. “The series of record efficiencies for flexible CIGS solar cells developed at Empa demonstrates that thin film solar cells can match the excellent performance of polycrystalline silicon cells. Now it is time for the next step, the scale-up of the technology to cover large areas in a cost-efficient roll-to-roll manufacturing process with an industrial partner”, says Gian-Luca Bona the Director of Empa. For this purpose, Empa is collaborating with Flisom, a start-up company involved in industrialization of flexible CIGS solar cells.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The research work has been supported over the years by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), the Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI), the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) and the EU Framework Programmes.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Story Source:</strong></span><br /> <blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The above story is reprinted from <a href="http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/3/131438/---/l=2" target="_blank">materials</a> provided by <a class="blue" href="http://www.empa.ch/" target="_blank"><strong><span id="source">Empa</span></strong></a>. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><em>Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.</em></span></blockquote></div></div></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2013/01/huge-solar-breakthrough.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-99149103634844666Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:07:00 +00002013-01-18T09:07:35.298-10:00Solar (PV) Energy For Cars Better Than BioFuels<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><h1 class="title"><a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/uoc--pbb011613.phphttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/uoc--pbb011613.php"><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;<span style="font-size: small;">http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/uoc--pbb011613.php</span></span></a></h1><h1 class="title"><span style="font-size: large;">Photovoltaics beat biofuels at converting sun's energy to miles driven</span></h1><span style="font-size: large;"></span><h2 class="subtitle"><span style="font-size: small;">New study shows solar power is not only better in terms of energy efficiency, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions -- but cost competitive, too</span></h2>In 2005, President George W. Bush and American corn farmers saw corn ethanol as a promising fossil fuel substitute that would reduce both American dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, the 2005 energy bill mandated that 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel be added to the gasoline supply in 2006. That rose to 4.7 billion gallons in 2007 and 7.5 billion in 2012.<br /> Since then, life cycle assessments (LCAs) have shown that corn ethanol has modest if any effect on reducing CO2 emissions and may actually increase them, while posing a threat to natural habitats and food supplies, as food stocks are turned to fuel and marginal lands are put under the plough to keep up with demand. In 2010, fuel ethanol consumed 40 percent of U.S. corn production, and 2012 prices are at record highs. Since the U.S. also accounts for 40 percent of the world's corn, U.S. ethanol production has affected corn prices around the planet.<br /> As electric vehicles (EVs) increasingly enter the market and charging stations are built to serve them, EVs are competing with alternative-fuel vehicles. Using electricity generated by coal-fired plants to power the cars defeats the purpose to some extent, but what if the energy comes from the ultimate clean and renewable source – the sun itself? How would that compete with ethanol in terms of land use, life-cycle emissions, and even cost?<br /> The question, says UCSB Bren School of Environmental Science &amp; Management Professor and LCA expert Roland Geyer, is which makes more sense, growing fuel crops to supply alternative-fuel vehicles with ethanol and other biofuels or using photovoltaics (PV) to directly power battery electric vehicles (BEV)?<br /> "The energy source for biofuels is the sun, through photosynthesis," he says. "The energy source for solar power is also the sun. Which is better?"<br /> To find out, Geyer joined former BrenSchool researcher David Stoms and James Kallaos, of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, to model the relative efficiencies of the technologies at converting a given amount of sunlight to miles driven.<br /> The results, which appear in a paper titled "Spatially Explicit Life Cycle Assessment of Sun-to-Wheels Transportation Pathways in the U.S." and published in the Dec. 26 issue of the journal <i>Environmental Science &amp; Technology</i>, showed photovoltaics (PV) to be much more efficient than biomass at turning sunlight into energy to fuel a car. <br /> "PV is orders of magnitude more efficient than biofuels pathways in terms of land use – 30, 50, even 200 times more efficient – depending on the specific crop and local conditions," says Geyer. "You get the same amount of energy using much less land, and PV doesn't require farm land."<br /> The researchers examined three ways of using sunlight to power cars: a) the traditional method of converting corn or other plants to ethanol; b) converting energy crops into electricity for BEVs rather than producing ethanol; and C) using PVs to convert sunlight directly into electricity for BEVs.<br /> Because land-use decisions are local, Geyer explains, he and his colleagues examined five prominent "sun-to-wheels" energy conversion pathways – ethanol from corn or switchgrass for internal combustion vehicles, electricity from corn or switchgrass for BEVs, and PV electricity for BEVs – for every county in the contiguous United States.<br /> Focusing the LCA on three key impacts – direct land use, life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and fossil fuel requirements – the researchers identified PV electricity for battery electric vehicles as the superior sun-to-wheels conversion method.<br /> "Even the most efficient biomass-based pathway…requires 29 times more land than the PV-based alternative in the same locations," the authors write. "PV BEV systems also have the lowest life-cycle GHG emissions throughout the U.S. and the lowest fossil fuel inputs, except in locations that have very high hypothetical switchgrass yields of 16 or more tons per hectare."<br /> PV conversion also has lower GHG emissions throughout the life cycle than do cellulosic biofuels, even in the most optimistic scenario for the latter. "The bottleneck for biofuels is photosynthesis," Geyer says. "It's at best 1-percent efficient at converting sunlight to crop, while today's thin-film PV is at least 10-percent efficient at converting sunlight to electricity.<br /> Finally, while cost was not a key component of the study, Geyer says, "The cost of solar power is dropping, and our quick calculations suggests that with the federal tax credit, electric vehicles are already competitive."<br /> What does this mean for the future?<br /> “What this research taught me is that biomass is simply not a good way of harvesting sunlight,” Geyer explains. “Not because of immature technologies but because of a fundamental physical constraint, the inefficiency of photosynthesis. This fundamental disadvantage will just get worse as PV-powered EVs are getting cheaper and more efficient in the years to come. A search for a silver bullet is under way in energy research, be it artificial photosynthesis or third-generation biofuels. But if there is a silver bullet, I think it is photovoltaics.” </div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2013/01/solar-pv-energy-for-cars-better-than.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-1741924002881973969Fri, 07 Dec 2012 19:16:00 +00002012-12-07T09:16:51.224-10:00Major Breakthrough - The Photon Trap<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121206203419.htm"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121206203419.htm</span></a><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://images.sciencedaily.com/2012/12/121206203419-large.jpg" rel="thumbnail"><img alt="" border="0" height="157" src="http://images.sciencedaily.com/2012/12/121206203419.jpg" width="300" /></a></span> <br /><div id="caption" style="padding: 5px 0 10px 0;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><em>Princeton researchers have found a simple and economical way to nearly triple the efficiency of organic solar cells, the cheap and flexible plastic devices that many scientists believe could be the future of solar power. (Credit: Image courtesy of Princeton University, Engineering School)</em>&nbsp;</span></div><div id="caption" style="padding: 5px 0px 10px;"><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121206203419.htm"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Tiny Structure Gives Big Boost to Solar Power</b></span></span></a></div><div id="first"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="date">ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2012)</span> — Princeton researchers have found a simple and economical way to nearly triple the efficiency of organic solar cells, the cheap and flexible plastic devices that many scientists believe could be the future of solar power.</span></div><div id="seealso"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The researchers, led by electrical engineer Stephen Chou, were able to increase the efficiency of the solar cells 175 percent by using a nanostructured "sandwich" of metal and plastic that collects and traps light. Chou said the technology also should increase the efficiency of conventional inorganic solar collectors, such as standard silicon solar panels, although he cautioned that his team has not yet completed research with inorganic devices.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Chou, the Joseph C. Elgin Professor of Engineering, said the research team used nanotechnology to overcome two primary challenges that cause solar cells to lose energy: light reflecting from the cell, and the inability to fully capture light that enters the cell.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">With their new metallic sandwich, the researchers were able to address both problems. The sandwich -- called a subwavelength plasmonic cavity -- has an extraordinary ability to dampen reflection and trap light. The new technique allowed Chou's team to create a solar cell that only reflects about 4 percent of light and absorbs as much as 96 percent. It demonstrates 52 percent higher efficiency in converting light to electrical energy than a conventional solar cell.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">That is for direct sunlight. The structure achieves even more efficiency for light that strikes the solar cell at large angles, which occurs on cloudy days or when the cell is not directly facing the sun. By capturing these angled rays, the new structure boosts efficiency by an additional 81 percent, leading to the 175 percent total increase.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Chou said the system is ready for commercial use although, as with any new product, there will be a transition period in moving from the lab to mass production.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The physics behind the innovation is formidably complex. But the device structure, in concept, is fairly simple.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The top layer, known as the window layer, of the new solar cell uses an incredibly fine metal mesh: the metal is 30 nanometers thick, and each hole is 175 nanometers in diameter and 25 nanometers apart. (A nanometer is a billionth of a meter and about one hundred-thousandth the width of human hair). This mesh replaces the conventional window layer typically made of a material called indium-tin-oxide (ITO).</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The mesh window layer is placed very close to the bottom layer of the sandwich, the same metal film used in conventional solar cells. In between the two metal sheets is a thin strip of semiconducting material used in solar panels. It can be any type -- silicon, plastic or gallium arsenide -- although Chou's team used an 85-nanometer-thick plastic.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The solar cell's features -- the spacing of the mesh, the thickness of the sandwich, the diameter of the holes -- are all smaller than the wavelength of the light being collected. This is critical because light behaves in very unusual ways in subwavelength structures. Chou's team discovered that using these subwavelength structures allowed them to create a trap in which light enters, with almost no reflection, and does not leave.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"It is like a black hole for light," Chou said. "It traps it."</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The team calls the system a "plasmonic cavity with subwavelength hole array" or PlaCSH. Photos of the surface of the PlaCSH solar cells demonstrate this light-absorbing effect: under sunlight, a standard solar power cell looks tinted in color due to light reflecting from its surface, but the PlaCSH looks deep black because of the extremely low light reflection.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The researchers expected an increase in efficiency from the technique, "but clearly the increase we found was beyond our expectations," Chou said.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Chou and electrical engineering graduate student Wei Ding reported their findings in the journal Optics Express, published online Nov. 2, 2012. Their work was supported in part by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The researchers said the PlaCSH solar cells can be manufactured cost-effectively in wallpaper-size sheets. Chou's lab used "nanoimprint," a low-cost nanofabrication technique Chou invented 16 years ago, which embosses nanostructures over a large area, like printing a newspaper.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Besides the innovative design, the work involved optimizing the system. Getting the structure exactly right "is critical to achieving high efficiency," Ding said.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Chou said that the development could have a number of applications depending on the type of solar collector. In this series of experiments, Chou and Ding worked with solar cells made from plastic, called organic solar cells. Plastic is cheap and malleable and the technology has great promise, but it has been limited in commercial use because of organic solar cells' low efficiency.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In addition to a direct boost to the cells' efficiency, the new nanostructured metal film also replaces the current ITO electrode that is the most expensive part of most current organic solar cells.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"PlaCSH also is extremely bendable," Chou said. "The mechanical property of ITO is like glass; it is very brittle."</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The nanostructured metal film is also promising for silicon solar panels that now dominate the market. Because the PlaCSH sandwich captures light independent of what electricity-generating material is used as the middle layer, it should boost efficiency of silicon panels as well. It also can reduce the thickness of the silicon used in traditional silicon solar panels by a thousand-fold, which could substantially decrease manufacturing costs and allow the panels to become more flexible.</span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Chou said the team plans further experiments and expects to increase the efficiency of the PlaCSH system as they refine the technology.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Story Source:</strong></span><br /> <blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The above story is reprinted from <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/engineering/news/archive/?id=9141" target="_blank">materials</a> provided by <a class="blue" href="http://engineering.princeton.edu/" target="_blank"><strong><span id="source">Princeton University, Engineering School</span></strong></a>. The original article was written by John Sullivan. </span><br /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><em>Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.</em></span></blockquote><hr /> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>Journal Reference</strong>:</span><br /> <ol style="margin: 5px 0 5px 18px; padding: 0;"><li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Stephen Y. Chou, Wei Ding. <strong>Ultrathin, high-efficiency, broad-band, omni-acceptance, organic solar cells enhanced by plasmonic cavity with subwavelength hole array</strong>. <em>Optics Express</em>, 2012; 21 (S1): A60 DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.21.000A60" target="_blank">10.1364/OE.21.000A60</a></span></li></ol><div id="citationbox" style="background-color: #eeeeee; margin-top: 15px;"> <form action="#" method="post"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><label>Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:</label></span> <div style="margin: 5px 0 0 0;"> <div id="citationformat"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><input checked="checked" id="citationapa" name="citebutton" type="radio" value="apa" /> APA<br /><br /><input id="citationmla" name="citebutton" type="radio" value="mla" /></span> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> MLA </span></div><div id="citationtext"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Princeton University, Engineering School (2012, December 6). Tiny structure gives big boost to solar power. <em>ScienceDaily</em>. Retrieved December 7, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>/releases/2012/12/121206203419.htm </span></div></div></form><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><em>Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.</em></span><br /> </div></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2012/12/major-breakthrough-photon-trap.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-4876154757789824062Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:51:00 +00002012-10-10T12:08:11.394-10:00Distributed Solar Beats Centralized Solar<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:ApplyBreakingRules/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument></xml><![endif]--> <br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Comments following the DOE PEIS “discussion” in </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Kona</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">HI</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">13 Sept 2012</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">.<b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><br /></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: center; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">A vote for more support for environmentally benign home solar energy</span></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: center; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Ulrich Bonne</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Hawaii</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">, <a href="mailto:ulrichbonne@msn.com">ulrichbonne@msn.com</a> * and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: center; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Jonathan Cole, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Hawaii</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">, <a href="mailto:joncole@gmail.com">joncole at gmail.com</a> **</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>* Ulrich Bonne is a semi-retired PhD Chemical Physicist in </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Kailua-Kona</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Hawaii</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span></div><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">** Jonathan Cole is a self-employed MBA in </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Honokaa</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Hawaii</span><br /><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: center; text-autospace: none;"><br /></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: center; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">7 October 2012</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: center; text-autospace: none;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">SUMMARY</span></b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> -- Some historical trends are clear, such as the trend from a few large central systems to many small, “distributed” or individual ones, as demonstrated by transitions from public to individual transportation and from big central computers to lap tops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">We believe that a similar trend is gaining traction towards distributed electricity generation. This is fueled not only by NIMBY opposition to new utility-sized plants; but now also by simple economics[1]. Distributed solar PV (photovoltaic) generation also reduces fossil fuel imports, air pollution, utility transmission losses and consumer bills. It simultaneously increases good land use. An added small energy storage yields uninterruptible power. Distributed solar generation also increases energy security and independence - as we have detailed below.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">We found the 30-year levelized 3-kW home PV electricity cost in </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Hawaii</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> to be 0.21 $/kWh before subsidies (or 0.23 $/kWh with cost of a loan), vs. 0.46 / 0.23 $/kWh for a central 30-</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: &quot;Arial Narrow&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">MW PV- / oil</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">-utility, or ~0.15 vs. 0.36 / 0.23 $/kWh after present PV tax credits.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Despite well-received federal and state subsidies via renewable energy tax credits, key barriers to faster implementation of solar PV residential roof systems remain, such as:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: -16.2pt; margin-top: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The still significant installed PV system price tag (especially if battery storage is added), </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The concern that lost utility profits will have to be made up by those ratepayers without solar installations, despite the utility benefit of delayed new plant capitalization, selling free excess PV capacity and income from the MMC (Minimum Monthly Charge) and </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The uncertainty or unwillingness by utilities to adapt by adding storage to their portfolio to compensate for the intermittent wind and solar electricity additions to their grid.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Countries in Europe have been more aggressive than the US and most US states in promoting the adoption of PV systems, as evident for example by their published Feed-in Tariff (FIT) terms[2], and ~2.5x lower PV installation costs in Germany than in the US[13]. </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Europe</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> has shown that good, long-term, decreasing incentives may lead to fast deployment of PVs. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Despite the gloating of those opposed to any energy subsidies, after recent downward adjustment of those incentives[2], few disagree with the notion that PV demand</span></div><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color: windowtext; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Has increased PV sales and also reduced PV manufacturing &amp; installation cost. </span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color: windowtext; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Created competition and with it, increased PV panel efficiency </span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color: windowtext; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Together with wind installations have lowered </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">European market power prices[14]</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span></li></ul><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">COMMENTS</span></b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> -- The comments below</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">A. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>List how we recommend the DOE, DBEDT &amp; NREL to get more involved, </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">B. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Illustrate the benefits of more distributed solar PVs and </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">C. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Demonstrate how greater support for distributed home PVs with storage would be more environmentally benign (save land area and emissions), and be more economical than support for adding utility-scale PVs, storage and transmission lines.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">_____________________________</span></div><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span> <br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">A. We recommend that DOE and DBEDT (Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism) be more forcefully involved with:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: -.1in; margin-top: 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Understanding residential PV generation data &amp; results, promotion and financial support</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Validating economic and environmental advantages of home PV systems with battery storage over utility-scale systems</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Using PVs for home Electric Vehicle (EV)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>and Plug-in Hybrid EV (PHEV) charging</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Supporting EV and PHEV battery development and usage</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Developing policies to encourage deployment of the above, including:</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 45.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -9.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">-- Test &amp; publicize efficiency &amp; cost information on available and matching hardware</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 45.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -9.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">-- Structure support (e.g. tax credits) on a multi-year time scale, even showing how that support will decline as PV costs are projected to decline, and thereby avoiding past “boom and bust cycles” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 45.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -9.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">-- Reduce the support that mature Big Oil still receives at the tune of some 4 B$/year, to instead support renewable residential PV systems</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 45.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -9.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">-- Smart grid implementations and demonstrations</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">B. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>The benefits from the above more forceful support of home PV+battery vs. utility PV system adoption would be evident in:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>&nbsp; </b></span></span></span><b><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Reduced renewable energy cost &amp; land-for-energy use</span></span></b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Reduced air pollution</span></b></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> from fossil fuel combustion </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Reduced need for biomass-to-fuel processing, &amp; its potential for increased food costs</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Greater security for energy in homes &amp; vehicles, and for food and water</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Increased US local economic activity due to reduction of fossil fuel imports[3]</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">C. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>To detail how greater support for distributed home PVs with storage would be more economical than support for utility-scale PVs, storage and transmission lines, we listed&nbsp;</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mNs1zA6xLo4/UHXeyk3htxI/AAAAAAAAAQg/RJ_f4L5tMYs/s1600/Table1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="347" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mNs1zA6xLo4/UHXeyk3htxI/AAAAAAAAAQg/RJ_f4L5tMYs/s640/Table1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /><style>st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]><style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style><![endif]--> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and added up the main CAPEX and OPEX items for such systems in Table 1, after normalizing all items for three 3-kW(peak) home-PV (consuming 242 kWh/month), a 30-MW(peak) utility-PV and -oil installations (last 2 columns) to 1 kW(peak).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>For purposes of this com</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">parison, as shown in Table 1, bottom row A, home PV systems, whether with or without battery, generator and/or grid back-up, can generate a lower, levelized, unsubsidized, life-cycle cost of <b>0.20 to 0.24 $/kWh</b>, than utility-sized PV systems, despite their size (lower PV installation costs), but because of tougher voltage and frequency stability requirements; and transmission &amp; distribution costs and losses. With higher CAPEX and OPEX costs, PV-utilities end up with a higher price of electricity of <b>0.45 $/kWh</b> (10% profit included); the oil-utility with 0.23 $/kWh was within the same range as the home-PV cost. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">The Row B $/kWh costs include applicable subsidies, and shifted to a new set of values of 0.13 to 0.16 versus 0.36 / 0.23 $/kWh for the PV- and oil-utilities.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>The underlying assumptions and choice of listed costs are detailed in the Appendix.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>But note that just like utilities have average utilization percentages of less than 50% of the installed US generation ability, so might home PV systems be oversized by up to 2x, to have enough generation “reserve” and to minimize the use of back-up energy from the grid or on-site generators. This extra reserve means that while the home-generated $/kWh still remain lower than the PV-utility $/kWh, the absolute $/kWh values for both home and utility-generated electricity are higher in Row C (based on a utilization of 70% for PVs and 43% for oil), resulting in the values of 0.19 to 0.23 versus 0.50 / 0.27 $/kWh.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">We did not factor in the PTC (Production Tax Credit) for renewable energy by utilities. As Table 1 shows, the present credit of 2.2 cents/kWh[7] would not alter our conclusions.</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">To compensate for the uncertainty in the price and life of batteries, one could triple the battery cost for the middle columns from $1000 to $3000, to allow replacement every ten years. This would increase the home PV + battery total cost and the levelized $/kWh cost to 64% of the PV utility-based rate, but would&nbsp;not alter the conclusion that economics favor home PV systems. A similar trend was already independently reported and highlighted in 2011 by comparing home PV with utility-scale concentrating solar panels[1].</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The calculations of $/kWh rates for a 2 $/gal oil-fired utility served as a further sanity check of our economic model, with its own capacity factor of 90% and utilization of 43% and found its rate to be 0.27 $/kWh (Row C), i.e. only a bit higher that the favored “Home PV+Battery On-Grid” system. However, that oil-utility rate would drop to 0.16 $/kWh if fired with 4 $/millionBtu (=0.44 $/GGE) natural gas, to the rate level close to that of the first two home PV systems in Row C.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; CONCLUSIONS -- </span></b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The simple cost calculations and estimates presented in Table 1 show that the need for </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">building and maintaining transmission lines (and the assumed 10% transmission loss) tilt the economics to significantly favor off- or on-grid home or distributed PV systems over large utility</span><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">-</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">scale PV "farms" or even oil-fired utilities, without or with subsidies. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The resulting PV-home-30-year-levelized rates ($/</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">kWh)</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> were estimated to be <b>~ 36% to 45 % of those of a PV-utility rate of 0.50 $/kWh, </b>after including subsidies, new transmission lines, realistic capacity factors (16%) and utilization percentages (70%). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">PV home rates are even lower than $/kWh rates of 2 $/gal oil-fired utility generation of 0.27 $/kWh. This rate becomes comparable to home PV rates if the battery cost is 3x higher than the assumed $1000 for the reference 1 kW(peak) PV with 5 kWh of storage. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Furthermore, the home PV + battery systems provide home and PHEV or EV transportation energy that is not subject to utility power outages nor to fuel / electricity cost escalations.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Regarding EV and PHEV charging, we conclude that the home PV system electricity costs, see bottom line of Table 1, are equivalent to retail gasoline prices of 5.96, 5.70, 7.25 $/gal (and 16.10 for PV-utility). But thanks to the about 4-fold higher “fuel-to-wheel” efficiency of EVs, these prices would be equivalent to enabling EVs and PHEVs to achieve over 3x lower $/mile fuel costs than conventional gasoline-powered vehicles.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Judging from prices of electricity and gasoline in many other US states and countries[8,9] being above 0.20 $/kWh and above 4 $/US gal, the prime conclusion of our comments about furthering distributed over central electricity generation holds true well beyond Hawaii or US borders. Distributed solar generation has profound economic, environmental benefits. It also dramatically increases energy, water and food security, while leaving agricultural lands for&nbsp;food production&nbsp;instead of PV-farms or bio-fuels. We would indeed have enough appropriate roof space for 100% of </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Hawaii</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">County</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">’s electricity needs, including energy for 100% conversion to EVs[11].</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">To summarize, we recommend that DOE, DBEDT and NREL dramatically increase its support&nbsp;for the development of distributed PV systems by focusing on those businesses who demonstrate best practice integrations, sizing and lowest installed cost*** of PV systems, which combine PV, storage and EV charging means. Likewise, they should watch for legislation that might hinder effective or rapid growth of distributed PV generation, as reported from </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Australia</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[12].<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>*** The installed cost of PV systems is 2.5x less in </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Germany</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> than in the </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">US</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">, despite similar PV panel costs[12,13].</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: -.1in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Our recommendations also include thoughts about the role of utilities. They could profit from distributed solar PV in a number of ways,&nbsp;e.g. by using their access to low-cost capital to become low-cost installers of home PV systems.&nbsp;Despite utility costs for centrally generated power being higher than for distributed PV and despite kWh billing reductions due to new home PV systems, we see revenue opportunities for utilities such as:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39.75pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: list 39.75pt; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Reduce $/kWh rates as indicated below, to stimulate demand for more electricity business. New on-grid PV homes increase revenue via the MMC and via excess kWh sales. The “loss” of kWh sales due to conversion of one old home to PV generation can be balanced by the excess PV energy from it and about half of a new PV home installation, from both of which the utility receives MMC (Monthly Minimum Charge) revenue and for which the utility can sell the free excess PV energy.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39.75pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: list 39.75pt; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Income from the MMC (Monthly Minimum Charge) – $20/month now in </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Hawaii</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">County</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">, which would allow an overall utility rate reduction by 3 and 11 cents/kWh for oil- and PV-utilities, respectively, for each new PV-home with a NEM contract added to the utility customers,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39.75pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: list 39.75pt; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Free home-PV excess PV energy, which maintains some kWh sales without fuel purchases. The sale of these excess kWh are equivalent to rate drops of 2 and 12 cents/kWh, for oil- and PV-utilities, respectively, for the assumed home PV utilization of 70% or 1.43x <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>PV system oversize. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Note that for a utility to maintain kWh sales as PV penetration increases, it is enough that the utility acquire 1.3 new PV-home customers for each old home “loss” to on-grid PV, because each “loss” is worth the excess energy from 1/(1.43-1) = 2.3 PV homes, including the one “lost”. </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39.75pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: list 39.75pt; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Revenue balance -- Even for an oil-utility, the above benefits, MMC, free PV energy and fuel savings compensate 8 + 43 + 25 = 76% of the kWh sales loss when one old home is converted to on-grid PV. By adding just a fraction (24/51 = 47%) of a new PV home to the grid, the utility will have recovered 100% of the “lost” revenue, saved 100+30+30*0.47 = 144% of the fossil fuel (it only takes 0.86% of its output to serve as back-up for these PV systems), and still distributes 30+30*0.47 = 44% of the original kWh-energy, with its transmission losses, to mostly non-PV rate payers.. </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39.75pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: list 39.75pt; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The reduction of transmission losses per total community&nbsp;generated kWh from central &amp; distributed sources is especially well achievable if PV homes are equipped with battery back-up, which further reduces and dampens transmission peaks and its losses, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>besides the uninterrupted power valued by electricity consumers.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39.75pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: list 39.75pt; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Decreased costs and $/kWh rates of utility-installed PV systems, because of standardization benefits, and reduced regulatory and land costs.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The above analysis did not consider the utility dynamics of meeting the load demand minute-by-minute &amp; 24/7, especially when increasing the contribution of distributed PV generation. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>However, many regions, including Germany, found that the wind and PV day-time energy additions helped to flatten the daily load demand curve[14], reduce the operating time of costly peaking units and thus lowered the overall European $/kWh rate. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; APPENDIX – </span></b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">For Table 1, we assumed a conservative PV capacity factor of 16%. The ability of a PV system to deliver kWh to the home was assumed to be 1.34x greater than the average needed amount, i.e. the PV system utilization was assumed to be 70% for home and utility PV systems (free fuel !) and US-average of 43% for the fossil fuel utility. We ignored the cost of capital (which would further favor home PV systems because of its lower CAPEX), ignored inflation and fuel escalation rates, and assumed installation &amp; miscellaneous costs to equal 100% of the equipment cost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Exception: The home (but not the utility) PV panel cost includes installation, inverter and installer profit.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uzdXG0MV3Ls/UHXwdqntP3I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/zauLqyZoX0w/s1600/CAPOP.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="390" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uzdXG0MV3Ls/UHXwdqntP3I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/zauLqyZoX0w/s640/CAPOP.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4Xt9-pQR1rQ/UHXxmwgtMFI/AAAAAAAAARI/e1IwdDAk6kQ/s1600/CAPOP2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="354" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4Xt9-pQR1rQ/UHXxmwgtMFI/AAAAAAAAARI/e1IwdDAk6kQ/s640/CAPOP2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">One easy-to-install PV system which may appeal to many home owners is shown in Fig.1, and is represented in Table 1 by the 3<sup>rd</sup> column from the right: Adapted from ref.[10], it features PV panels, batteries, charge controller, inverters and a disconnect switch, as needed for each parallel PV panel, so that the PV system output can be plugged into either one of many existing home (grid) outlets, like an appliance, or into a separate, uninterruptible power cord outlet or circuit, which does not get disconnected during grid outages. The shown battery back-up from the grid via a rectifier is safe, thanks to its isolation transformer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Such a PV system, after UL-type approvals, might not even need utility or building permits as in </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Germany</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[12].</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xLIRB-CKN10/UHXfTMXjNaI/AAAAAAAAAQo/QK8_Ab9zRbo/s1600/Fig1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xLIRB-CKN10/UHXfTMXjNaI/AAAAAAAAAQo/QK8_Ab9zRbo/s1600/Fig1.jpg" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><br /></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /><style>st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]><style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style><![endif]--> </span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><b><b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">REFERENCES</span></b></b></div><b> </b><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[1]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">John Farrell, "Home solar PV cheaper than concentrating solar power," RenewableWorldEnergy.com (blog)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">February 24, 2011</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><a href="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/02/home-solar-pv-cheaper-than-any-concentrating-solar-power-plant"><span style="color: windowtext;">http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/02/home-solar-pv-cheaper-than-any-concentrating-solar-power-plant</span></a></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span></b></div><b></b><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><b><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[2]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Kate Garrat, ”Solar PV needs more PR power in light of subsidy cuts,” The Energy Collective, Blog, <a href="http://theenergycollective.com/kate-garratt/114916/solar-pv-needs-more-pr-power-light-subsidy-cuts%2020%20Sept%202012"><span style="color: windowtext;">http://theenergycollective.com/kate-garratt/114916/solar-pv-needs-more-pr-power-light-subsidy-cuts 20 Sept 2012</span></a></span></b></div><b><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>[3]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">Thomas Loudat, PhD (Consultant, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">Oahu</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">. HI), “Analysis of the economic and fiscal impacts of the </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">Hawaii</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;"> solar energy credit for residential and commercial photovoltaic systems,” Report to Department for Business, Economic Development &amp; Tourism (DBEDT), </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">Hawaii</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">, (2012), in preparation, based the “2007 DBEDT Input Output Model.” Parts of the report and the underlying model[3a] are available on DBEDT website<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>[3a] Binsheng Li, PhD, (Research and Economic Analysis Division, DBEDT, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">Hawaii</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">), “The Hawaii State input-output study: 2007 Benchmark Report,” State of </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">Hawaii</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: KHM;">, July 2011, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><a href="http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/data_reports/2007-io/State2007IO-7-2011.pdf"><span style="color: windowtext;">http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/data_reports/2007-io/State2007IO-7-2011.pdf</span></a></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[4]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Danny King, "Plug-in vehicle battery costs of $250 per kWh coming with "dramatic" price fall," </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Jul 13th 2012</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">, http://green.autoblog.com/2012/07/13/plug-in-vehicle-battery-costs-of-250-per-kwh-coming-with-drama/</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[5]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Engine generators available at CostCo and others for 0.1 $/W</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[6]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Rob Shikina, "Stubborn fire destroys 15-MW battery building at Kahuku wind farm," </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">2 Aug.'12</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">(Blog) </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/164684136.html?id=164684136</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[7]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Wikipedia, “</span><span class="mw-headline"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Renewable Energy/Production Tax Credit (PTC),” </span></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_1992" title="Energy Policy Act of 1992"><span style="background: white; color: windowtext;">Energy Policy Act of 1992</span></a>, Unless extended, the PTC of 2.2 cents/kWh for utilities will expire by end of 2012 </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_credit#Renewable_Energy.2FProduction_Tax_Credit_.28PTC.29"><span style="color: windowtext;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_credit#Renewable_Energy.2FProduction_Tax_Credit_.28PTC.29</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white;">&nbsp;</span></span></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[8]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Wikipedia, “Global electricity prices by country,” <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing"><span style="color: windowtext;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing</span></a>, 2011 all in US cents/kWh; US 5-36, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Denmark</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> 40.38, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Germany</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> 27.81, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Netherlands</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> 28.89, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Spain</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> 22.73, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">UK</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> 17.85.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 27.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[9]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Wikipedia, “Gasoline (and diesel) usage and pricing,” in $/US-gal: US ~4, </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Europe</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> ~9; <u><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing%202012">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing 2012</a></u></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 34.55pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -34.55pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[10]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Jonathan Cole (</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Honokaa</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">, </span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Hawaii</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">), "Accelerating the Solar Transition," NASA Tech Briefs, 2012 Design Contest, </span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">23 June 2011</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">, http://contest.techbriefs.com/sustainable-technologies-2011/1612-accelerating-the-solar-transition</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 34.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -34.2pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[11]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">U. Bonne, "</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Can</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Hawaii</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">County</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"> Really Be Energy Self-Sufficient? (yes, with PV only!)," </span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">6 Nov.’09</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">, <a href="http://www.energyfuturehawaii.org/Hawaii-County-Energy-Self-Sufficient">http://www.energyfuturehawaii.org/Hawaii-County-Energy-Self-Sufficient</a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 34.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -34.2pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[12]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Giles Parkinson, "How big utilities propose to kill solar PV," </span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">9 July 2012</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">, <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/how-big-utilities-propose-to-kill-solar-pv-81496">http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/how-big-utilities-propose-to-kill-solar-pv-81496</a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 34.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -34.2pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[13]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Barry Cinnamon (former chief executive of Westinghouse Solar), "Cut the price of solar In half by cutting red tape," </span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">5 July 2012</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">, http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/07/05/cut-the-price-of-solar-in-half-by-cutting-red-tape/<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 34.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -34.2pt;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">[14]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Craig Morris, "German wind and PV lower European market power prices," </span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">24 July 2012</span><span style="font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">, http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-wind-and-pv-lower-european-market-power-prices/150/407/39758</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 34.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -34.2pt;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">_____________________________________</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: -16.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">PEIS = Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (for </span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">Hawaii</span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">’s renewable energy goals)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">The deadline for submitting written testimony is Oct 3 or 9, 2012</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">To get involved:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><a href="http://hawaiicleanenergypeis.com/getting-involved/"><span style="color: windowtext;">http://hawaiicleanenergypeis.com/getting-involved/</span></a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;">To submit comments </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"><a href="http://hawaiicleanenergypeis.com/getting-involved/submit-comments/"><span style="color: windowtext;">http://hawaiicleanenergypeis.com/getting-involved/submit-comments/</span></a></span><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"></span></div></b><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .25in; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-language: KHM; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;MS Mincho&quot;; mso-fareast-language: JA;"> </span></div><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /><style>st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]><style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style><![endif]--></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2012/10/distributed-solar-beats-centralized.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-1585339030523807731Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:02:00 +00002012-08-05T07:09:06.534-10:00Our Solar Future?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><h2 class="contentheading clearfix">&nbsp; <a href="http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=6584:future-planet-the-future-of-solar-technology&amp;catid=94:david-tow&amp;Itemid=104"> <span style="font-size: x-small;">http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=6584:future-planet-the-future-of-solar-technology&amp;catid=94:david-tow&amp;Itemid=104</span></a></h2><h2 class="contentheading clearfix"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=6584:future-planet-the-future-of-solar-technology&amp;catid=94:david-tow&amp;Itemid=104">Future Planet – The Future of Solar Technology</a></span> </h2><div class="article-tools clearfix"><div class="article-meta"><span class="createdate"> Sunday, 05 August 2012 07:01 </span> <span class="createby"> David Tow&nbsp;</span><a class="comments" href="http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=6584:future-planet-the-future-of-solar-technology&amp;catid=94:david-tow&amp;Itemid=104#comments"></a> </div><div class="buttonheading"><a href="http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_mailto&amp;tmpl=component&amp;link=18f6f093fd1eb60ddac79a31663eff840740fa66" title="E-mail"><img alt="E-mail" src="http://www.international.to/templates/gk_twn2/images/emailButton.png" /></a> <a href="http://www.international.to/index.php?view=article&amp;catid=94%3Adavid-tow&amp;id=6584%3Afuture-planet-the-future-of-solar-technology&amp;tmpl=component&amp;print=1&amp;layout=default&amp;page=&amp;option=com_content&amp;Itemid=104" rel="nofollow" title="Print"><img alt="Print" src="http://www.international.to/templates/gk_twn2/images/printButton.png" /></a> <a href="http://www.international.to/index.php?view=article&amp;catid=94%3Adavid-tow&amp;id=6584%3Afuture-planet-the-future-of-solar-technology&amp;format=pdf&amp;option=com_content&amp;Itemid=104" rel="nofollow" title="PDF"><img alt="PDF" src="http://www.international.to/templates/gk_twn2/images/pdf_button.png" /></a> </div></div><div class="article-content"><div class="img_caption left" style="float: left; width: 176px;"><br /><div class="img_caption">David Tow</div></div><a href="http://international.to/images/stories/0001/david_tow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img align="left" alt="David Tow" border="0" class="caption" src="http://international.to/images/stories/0001/david_tow.jpg" title="David Tow" /></a>AUSTRALIA 5 August 2012. The Director of the Future Planet Research Centre- David Hunter Tow predicts that recent advances in solar technology may be sufficient to shift the balance from fossil to renewable energy just in time to save humanity from a likely heat death.<br /><br />Solar technology is about to take off and may finally be on the threshold of displacing a large chunk of fossil fuel dependancy.<br /><br />This is very good news indeed- for humans, life on Earth and possibly the Universe at large if we are the only super intelligent life form that calls it home. <br /><br />Just as it seemed that the mega fossil fuel producers of coal, natural gas and oil would drive Planet Earth over the carbon cliff, major improvements in the efficiency of solar power, in tandem with advances in the sustainability of homes, workplaces and cities, has at last opened a small window of opportunity to reverse the slide to oblivion. <br /><br />The solar energy absorbed by the earth’s oceans, atmosphere and land in less than two hours is more than the total energy the world uses in a year, and is twice as much as will ever be extracted from its fossil resources. The Sun therefore not only rises every day, but every day provides the means for possible salvation. <br /><br />And just in time, as the planet teeters on the brink of ecosystem collapse. <br /><br />A massive surge in research and innovation has pushed solar energy to the point where crossover from fossil to renewable energy is feasible, at least for most domestic, transport and light industrial applications, within the next few years. <br /><br />Panic about the world’s prognosis hasn’t quite set in yet but it’s getting close, with geo-engineering trials already beginning. These involve for example the spraying of chemicals into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight to cool the earth. But the risks are high, including the possibility of reducing global rainfall and causing further damage to the ozone layer, thus threatening food supplies to billions of people and in addition allowing high polluting industries to continue to free ride, causing further irrevocable damage. <br /><br />A State of the Future Report just released, with contributions by 2700 experts backed by UNESCO and the World Bank, presents another grim vision of the shortages and violence that will certainly eventuate if a solution is not found; as does the latest projections of extreme weather events by the UN International Panel for Climate Change. <br /><br />With half the world facing poverty, pandemics, unemployment and violence due to scarce water, food and energy supplies, rapid climate change will be the biggest crisis the world has ever faced. But on the positive side it might also offer the incentive for humanity to become more ethically responsible in its future management of the planet, investing in the next generation of greener technologies, with Governments cooperating to achieve permanent economic sustainability, democratisation and eventually peace. <br /><br />But in the meantime the situation is becoming dire and according to projections a tipping point is fast approaching. Carbon levels have reached 400 ppm in the Arctic, the same as 3 million years ago during the Pliocene era, so it’s not just a matter of short term natural variability. CO2 emissions have increased in 2011 by 3% above 2010 levels, but emissions need to decline by 3% per year to have any chance of stabilising global warming, so that by 2050 they can be at 50% of present levels.<br /><br />This will be an extremely difficult goal to reach. By 2015 India and China will both have outstripped the US in energy consumption by a large margin and although making progress on the renewables front are still totally dependent on fossil fuels.<br /><br />But there’s no choice about making the switch if humans are to survive. The US has just experienced one of the most extreme droughts and heat waves in its history. This is leading to massive grain and fresh water shortages globally, while at the same time putting major strains on existing electricity grid infrastructure and fuel dependency- a pattern becoming more common across the world, particularly in the developing counties of Africa and Asia.<br /><br />Recently the combined strain of an expanding consumer population and a bad monsoon season, plus the high cost of imported fuel and a dysfunctional grid system, caused a rolling blackout affecting 600 million people in India – over half its population. Only the use of expensive diesel generators kept essential services such as hospitals, schools, banks and communication centres operational.<br /><br />Current breakthroughs in renewable energy, particularly solar, are therefore essential. Right now with concerted action, solar plants could be built to more than meet projected electricity demand in the future, but it won’t happen quickly, because of deeply entrenched fossil fuel dependencies.<br /><br />But on the bright side a number of industrial baseload energy projects are already under development including-<br /><br />Desertec –part of the Great African Grid- a proof of concept project based in Morocco, aiming to supply 15% of Europe’s energy from the solar power of the Saharan desert, initially to Germany, but longer term with 56 partners from 15 countries.<br /><br />Medgrid- another North African project linking solar and wind farms, with 20GW of generating capacity of which 5GW would be exported to Europe.<br /><br />These and other renewable energy projects would in turn become components of a future European SuperGrid, channelling renewable energy across North Africa, the Middle East and Europe; serving as the backbone of a larger European SuperSmart Grid<br /><br />A more futuristic concept is being planned by the Japanese, aiming to create the Lunar Ring project on the moon, maintained by robots, using superconducting cables to channel power from reflected sunlight to transmission centres and a receiving station near the earth’s equator for distribution to cities and towns.<br /><br />At the same time, countries such as China and Germany are leading the charge in solar technology manufacturing as well as other renewables such as wind. China leads the market in green economy products such as solar cells with a huge push to reduce carbon intensity- the ratio of CO2 levels to GDP.<br /><br />Germany already generates 4% of its energy from solar power. On a sunny day this can increase to over 35%, including energy from a million solar panels on houses, buildings and the sides of highways- more solar panels than rest of world combined.<br /><br />Even in Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter of crude oil, the tide is turning. It produces 8.3 million barrels of crude oil daily- half consumed by the domestic market and its industries. Domestic demand will double by 2028 which would compromise lucrative export capacity. The alternative is to substitute gas for utilities. But with gas currently subsidised to 15 cents a litre it is battling to balance a high standard of living for its population and long term energy security.<br /><br />It has therefore Announced a $109 billion plan to create a solar industry based on thermal concentrated solar power-CSP, to generate a third of the nation’s electricity by 2032, focussing the sun with mirrors to drive turbines and storing the energy in molten salt. With this technology the Saudis could export solar energy for next twenty centuries.<br /><br />Saudi Arabia also has lots of sand rich in silicon, needed to make high quality polysilicon solar cells and has already announced partnerships with Germany and South Korea to produce up to 10,000 tonnes of extra pure polysilicon for solar cell production per year.<br /><br />Despite the doomsayers, transition to a green energy regime would not reduce overall energy sector employment. The global renewables sector currently employs 5 million workers. This is estimated to increase to 30 million within two decades.<br /><br />But as well as breakthroughs in technology, a major driver for adoption of renewables is the shift towards sustainable architectures for urban living. The recent advances in solar technologies referred to below, are ideally placed to support this evolution.<br /><br />The transition within cities will take the form of small self-sufficient interconnected neighbourhoods, within walking or cycling distance of essential service centres. These will provide the full range of communication, education, work, health, leisure and social resources. Local transport systems will utilise advanced battery or hydrogen cell electric power technology using sunlight to split water, which will continue to improve energy density outputs.<br /><br />Within ten years the impact of global warming will dominate city planning. Buildings will be designed to conserve energy, with surfaces utilising flexible thin film and organic solar panels. In addition, high growth public gardens, green belts and mini-parks will generate cooling air-flows and most surfaces will be utilised to collect runoff water to support sustainable horticulture. Efficiency and recycling savings of the order of 30% on today’s levels will be available from the application of smart adaptive technologies in power grids, communication, distribution and transport networks, manufacturing plants and consumer households. Garbage will be totally recycled, with organic waste generating significant levels of methane energy for local heating and power grid usage. Excess capacity will be fed to the major power grids, providing a constant re-balancing of energy supply across the world.<br /><br />The new solar technologies are now positioned to mesh with this revolution and include advances in the following areas -<br /><br />Photovoltaics – Solar photovoltaic thermal systems that can generate both heat and electricity- using amorphous silicon cells, both cheaper and with 10% greater electric output than existing crystal silicon cells. In addition low cost, high efficiency solar cells can now be tailored from any common semiconductor material such as metal oxides and sulphides. Such cells also have the potential to convert 28% of sunlight into electricity using a new technique of photon recycling.<br /><br />Solar cell advances- with active layers made from carbon nano-materials having the same advantages as polymer based cells. They are flexible, tuneable and photo-stable. Advances in organic solar cells that can split particles in the polymer layer have also been achieved. These are not as efficient as inorganic solar cells but much more cost effective.<br /><br />Solar Thermal Power- a first generation technology, but now with the ability to concentrate solar power using parabolic trough plates unrestricted by scarce material availability, with rare earths and silvered mirrors replaced by common commodities such as stainless steel, aluminium and glass.<br /><br />.Solar Film Surface Coatings- solar power generating surface coatings using nanotechnology- allowing windows and glazed surfaces to be used as luminescent solar concentrators, with thin films absorbing sunlight and directing it to narrow solar cells at the perimeter of windows. Such surface coatings can also be used on the glazed facades of office blocks and houses. Film coatings can even be wrapped over vehicles and buildings to gain maximum sun exposure. This is a less expensive and toxic method than using non-film materials. Polymer plastic cling film solar cells that use flexible layers deposited over large areas can also be applied to produce efficient solar structures.<br /><br />Printing and paint-on solar panels- ultra cheap solar energy panels for domestic and industrial using can be created using high volume printing methods, producing nanoscale films of solar cells 1000 time thinner than width of human hair. Also paint-on solar cells, using quantum dot nanoparticles of titanium dioxide painted on the outside of homes or buildings can be used to power appliances and equipment inside.<br /><br />Artificial Photosynthesis- this technology mimics the natural process in plants and bacteria, converting sunlight into energy by splitting water molecules into Hydrogen and Oxygen creating free protons and electrons. Plants achieve 95% efficiency compared to 10-15% in human photovoltaic cells. Quantum effects have been discovered in first stage of plant photosynthesis, allowing different pigment molecules responsible for absorbing energy carried by light to be excited by a single photon simultaneously.<br /><br />Optimised photosynthesis can be achieved by learning the deep secrets from plants and marine algae, which have natural antenna- complexes composed of chlorophyll to route the flow of energy using principles of quantum mechanics.<br /><br />The above advances in solar power generation portend economies of scale, efficiency and cost that will soon begin to challenge the economics of fossil fuels, supporting commercial application, quite apart from the small issue of saving humanity from a Venusian future.<br /><br />The sun has always been the dominant driver of new life for all civilisations- ancient and modern.<br /><br />Now it is being asked to apply its awesome power to allow 21st century life to survive.<br /><br />The question is – can the sun rise fast enough to save its planetary offspring?</div></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2012/08/our-solar-future.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-3596914428755613814Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:52:00 +00002012-07-25T06:52:07.776-10:00Greed and Corruption Rule Our Fate<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> <br /><div id="printPageContaner"> <div id="printRsHeader"> <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719</a></div><div id="printRsHeader"> </div><div id="printContent"> <div id="main"> <h1><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719">Global Warming's Terrifying New Math</a></h1><h2>Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is</h2><h3 class="byline">by: <strong>Bill McKibben</strong></h3><div class="body"> <div class="assetContainer imageStandard floatLt"> <div class="imageCredit" style="width: 290px;"></div></div>If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.<br /> Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.<br /> Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the world's nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn't even attend. It was "a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago," the British journalist George Monbiot wrote; no one paid it much attention, footsteps echoing through the halls "once thronged by multitudes." Since I wrote one of the first books for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989, and since I've spent the intervening decades working ineffectively to slow that warming, I can say with some confidence that we're losing the fight, badly and quickly – losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.<br /> When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn't yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious – our almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless – position with three simple numbers.<br /> <strong>The First Number: 2° Celsius</strong><br /> <span style="color: black; float: left; font-size: 35pt; line-height: 0.7; margin: 0.13em 0.1em 0 0;">I</span>f the movie had ended in Hollywood fashion, the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 would have marked the culmination of the global fight to slow a changing climate. The world's nations had gathered in the December gloom of the Danish capital for what a leading climate economist, Sir Nicholas Stern of Britain, called the "most important gathering since the Second World War, given what is at stake." As Danish energy minister Connie Hedegaard, who presided over the conference, declared at the time: "This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we get a new and better one. If ever."<br /> In the event, of course, we missed it. Copenhagen failed spectacularly. Neither China nor the United States, which between them are responsible for 40 percent of global carbon emissions, was prepared to offer dramatic concessions, and so the conference drifted aimlessly for two weeks until world leaders jetted in for the final day. Amid considerable chaos, President Obama took the lead in drafting a face-saving "Copenhagen Accord" that fooled very few. Its purely voluntary agreements committed no one to anything, and even if countries signaled their intentions to cut carbon emissions, there was no enforcement mechanism. "Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight," an angry Greenpeace official declared, "with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport." Headline writers were equally brutal: COPENHAGEN: THE MUNICH OF OUR TIMES? asked one.<br /> The accord did contain one important number, however. In Paragraph 1, it formally recognized "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius." And in the very next paragraph, it declared that "we agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required... so as to hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius." By insisting on two degrees – about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – the accord ratified positions taken earlier in 2009 by the G8, and the so-called Major Economies Forum. It was as conventional as conventional wisdom gets. The number first gained prominence, in fact, at a 1995 climate conference chaired by Angela Merkel, then the German minister of the environment and now the center-right chancellor of the nation.<br /> Some context: So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. "Any number much above one degree involves a gamble," writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up." Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: "If we're seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much." NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet's most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: "The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster." At the Copenhagen summit, a spokesman for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: "Some countries will flat-out disappear." When delegates from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a "suicide pact" for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting, "One degree, one Africa."<br /> Despite such well-founded misgivings, political realism bested scientific data, and the world settled on the two-degree target – indeed, it's fair to say that it's the only thing about climate change the world has settled on. All told, 167 countries responsible for more than 87 percent of the world's carbon emissions have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, endorsing the two-degree target. Only a few dozen countries have rejected it, including Kuwait, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Even the United Arab Emirates, which makes most of its money exporting oil and gas, signed on. The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we can't raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius – it's become the bottomest of bottom lines. Two degrees.<br /> <strong>The Second Number: 565 Gigatons</strong><br /> <span style="color: black; float: left; font-size: 35pt; line-height: 0.7; margin: 0.13em 0.1em 0 0;">S</span>cientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)<br /> This idea of a global "carbon budget" emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since we've increased the Earth's temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we're currently less than halfway to the target. But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO<sub>2</sub> now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we're already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target.<br /> How good are these numbers? No one is insisting that they're exact, but few dispute that they're generally right. The 565-gigaton figure was derived from one of the most sophisticated computer-simulation models that have been built by climate scientists around the world over the past few decades. And the number is being further confirmed by the latest climate-simulation models currently being finalized in advance of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Looking at them as they come in, they hardly differ at all," says Tom Wigley, an Australian climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "There's maybe 40 models in the data set now, compared with 20 before. But so far the numbers are pretty much the same. We're just fine-tuning things. I don't think much has changed over the last decade." William Collins, a senior climate scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, agrees. "I think the results of this round of simulations will be quite similar," he says. "We're not getting any free lunch from additional understanding of the climate system."<br /> We're not getting any free lunch from the world's economies, either. With only a single year's lull in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis, we've continued to pour record amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, year after year. In late May, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures – CO<sub>2</sub> emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before. America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emissions fell slightly; China kept booming, so its carbon output (which recently surpassed the U.S.) rose 9.3 percent; the Japanese shut down their fleet of nukes post-Fukushima, so their emissions edged up 2.4 percent. "There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency," said Corinne Le Quéré, who runs England's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. "But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal." In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.<br /> So, new data in hand, everyone at the Rio conference renewed their ritual calls for serious international action to move us back to a two-degree trajectory. The charade will continue in November, when the next Conference of the Parties (COP) of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change convenes in Qatar. This will be COP 18 – COP 1 was held in Berlin in 1995, and since then the process has accomplished essentially nothing. Even scientists, who are notoriously reluctant to speak out, are slowly overcoming their natural preference to simply provide data. "The message has been consistent for close to 30 years now," Collins says with a wry laugh, "and we have the instrumentation and the computer power required to present the evidence in detail. If we choose to continue on our present course of action, it should be done with a full evaluation of the evidence the scientific community has presented." He pauses, suddenly conscious of being on the record. "I should say, a <em>fuller evaluation</em> of the evidence."<br /> So far, though, such calls have had little effect. We're in the same position we've been in for a quarter-century: scientific warning followed by political inaction. Among scientists speaking off the record, disgusted candor is the rule. One senior scientist told me, "You know those new cigarette packs, where governments make them put a picture of someone with a hole in their throats? Gas pumps should have something like that."<br /> <strong>The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons</strong><br /> <span style="color: black; float: left; font-size: 35pt; line-height: 0.7; margin: 0.13em 0.1em 0 0;">T</span>his number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.<br /> The Carbon Tracker Initiative – led by James Leaton, an environmentalist who served as an adviser at the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers – combed through proprietary databases to figure out how much oil, gas and coal the world's major energy companies hold in reserve. The numbers aren't perfect – they don't fully reflect the recent surge in unconventional energy sources like shale gas, and they don't accurately reflect coal reserves, which are subject to less stringent reporting requirements than oil and gas. But for the biggest companies, the figures are quite exact: If you burned everything in the inventories of Russia's Lukoil and America's ExxonMobil, for instance, which lead the list of oil and gas companies, each would release more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.<br /> Which is exactly why this new number, 2,795 gigatons, is such a big deal. Think of two degrees Celsius as the legal drinking limit – equivalent to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level below which you might get away with driving home. The 565 gigatons is how many drinks you could have and still stay below that limit – the six beers, say, you might consume in an evening. And the 2,795 gigatons? That's the three 12-packs the fossil-fuel industry has on the table, already opened and ready to pour.<br /> We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We'd have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been likely. Now, barring some massive intervention, it seems certain.<br /> Yes, this coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it's already economically aboveground – it's figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony. It explains why the big fossil-fuel companies have fought so hard to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide – those reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their value. It's why they've worked so hard these past years to figure out how to unlock the oil in Canada's tar sands, or how to drill miles beneath the sea, or how to frack the Appalachians.<br /> If you told Exxon or Lukoil that, in order to avoid wrecking the climate, they couldn't pump out their reserves, the value of their companies would plummet. John Fullerton, a former managing director at JP Morgan who now runs the Capital Institute, calculates that at today's market value, those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. Which is to say, if you paid attention to the scientists and kept 80 percent of it underground, you'd be writing off $20 trillion in assets. The numbers aren't exact, of course, but that carbon bubble makes the housing bubble look small by comparison. It won't necessarily burst – we might well burn all that carbon, in which case investors will do fine. But if we do, the planet will crater. You can have a healthy fossil-fuel balance sheet, or a relatively healthy planet – but now that we know the numbers, it looks like you can't have both. Do the math: 2,795 is five times 565. That's how the story ends.<br /> <span style="color: black; float: left; font-size: 35pt; line-height: 0.7; margin: 0.13em 0.1em 0 0;">S</span>o far, as I said at the start, environmental efforts to tackle global warming have failed. The planet's emissions of carbon dioxide continue to soar, especially as developing countries emulate (and supplant) the industries of the West. Even in rich countries, small reductions in emissions offer no sign of the real break with the status quo we'd need to upend the iron logic of these three numbers. Germany is one of the only big countries that has actually tried hard to change its energy mix; on one sunny Saturday in late May, that northern-latitude nation generated nearly half its power from solar panels within its borders. That's a small miracle – and it demonstrates that we have the technology to solve our problems. But we lack the will. So far, Germany's the exception; the rule is ever more carbon.<br /> This record of failure means we know a lot about what strategies <em>don't</em> work. Green groups, for instance, have spent a lot of time trying to change individual lifestyles: the iconic twisty light bulb has been installed by the millions, but so have a new generation of energy-sucking flatscreen TVs. Most of us are fundamentally ambivalent about going green: We like cheap flights to warm places, and we're certainly not going to give them up if everyone else is still taking them. Since all of us are in some way the beneficiaries of cheap fossil fuel, tackling climate change has been like trying to build a movement against yourself – it's as if the gay-rights movement had to be constructed entirely from evangelical preachers, or the abolition movement from slaveholders.<br /> People perceive – correctly – that their individual actions will not make a decisive difference in the atmospheric concentration of CO2; by 2010, a poll found that "while recycling is widespread in America and 73 percent of those polled are paying bills online in order to save paper," only four percent had reduced their utility use and only three percent had purchased hybrid cars. Given a hundred years, you could conceivably change lifestyles enough to matter – but time is precisely what we lack.<br /> A more efficient method, of course, would be to work through the political system, and environmentalists have tried that, too, with the same limited success. They've patiently lobbied leaders, trying to convince them of our peril and assuming that politicians would heed the warnings. Sometimes it has seemed to work. Barack Obama, for instance, campaigned more aggressively about climate change than any president before him – the night he won the nomination, he told supporters that his election would mark the moment "the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal." And he has achieved one significant change: a steady increase in the fuel efficiency mandated for automobiles. It's the kind of measure, adopted a quarter-century ago, that would have helped enormously. But in light of the numbers I've just described, it's obviously a very small start indeed.<br /> At this point, effective action would require actually keeping most of the carbon the fossil-fuel industry wants to burn safely in the soil, not just changing slightly the speed at which it's burned. And there the president, apparently haunted by the still-echoing cry of "Drill, baby, drill," has gone out of his way to frack and mine. His secretary of interior, for instance, opened up a huge swath of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming for coal extraction: The total basin contains some 67.5 gigatons worth of carbon (or more than 10 percent of the available atmospheric space). He's doing the same thing with Arctic and offshore drilling; in fact, as he explained on the stump in March, "You have my word that we will keep drilling everywhere we can... That's a commitment that I make." The next day, in a yard full of oil pipe in Cushing, Oklahoma, the president promised to work on wind and solar energy but, at the same time, to speed up fossil-fuel development: "Producing more oil and gas here at home has been, and will continue to be, a critical part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy." That is, he's committed to finding even more stock to add to the 2,795-gigaton inventory of unburned carbon.<br /> Sometimes the irony is almost Borat-scale obvious: In early June, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled on a Norwegian research trawler to see firsthand the growing damage from climate change. "Many of the predictions about warming in the Arctic are being surpassed by the actual data," she said, describing the sight as "sobering." But the discussions she traveled to Scandinavia to have with other foreign ministers were mostly about how to make sure Western nations get their share of the estimated $9 trillion in oil (that's more than 90 billion barrels, or 37 gigatons of carbon) that will become accessible as the Arctic ice melts. Last month, the Obama administration indicated that it would give Shell permission to start drilling in sections of the Arctic.<br /> Almost every government with deposits of hydrocarbons straddles the same divide. Canada, for instance, is a liberal democracy renowned for its internationalism – no wonder, then, that it signed on to the Kyoto treaty, promising to cut its carbon emissions substantially by 2012. But the rising price of oil suddenly made the tar sands of Alberta economically attractive – and since, as NASA climatologist James Hansen pointed out in May, they contain as much as 240 gigatons of carbon (or almost half of the available space if we take the 565 limit seriously), that meant Canada's commitment to Kyoto was nonsense. In December, the Canadian government withdrew from the treaty before it faced fines for failing to meet its commitments.<br /> The same kind of hypocrisy applies across the ideological board: In his speech to the Copenhagen conference, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez quoted Rosa Luxemburg, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and "Christ the Redeemer," insisting that "climate change is undoubtedly the most devastating environmental problem of this century." But the next spring, in the Simon Bolivar Hall of the state-run oil company, he signed an agreement with a consortium of international players to develop the vast Orinoco tar sands as "the most significant engine for a comprehensive development of the entire territory and Venezuelan population." The Orinoco deposits are larger than Alberta's – taken together, they'd fill up the whole available atmospheric space.<br /> <span style="color: black; float: left; font-size: 35pt; line-height: 0.7; margin: 0.13em 0.1em 0 0;">S</span>o: the paths we have tried to tackle global warming have so far produced only gradual, halting shifts. A rapid, transformative change would require building a movement, and movements require enemies. As John F. Kennedy put it, "The civil rights movement should thank God for Bull Connor. He's helped it as much as Abraham Lincoln." And enemies are what climate change has lacked.<br /> But what all these climate numbers make painfully, usefully clear is that the planet does indeed have an enemy – one far more committed to action than governments or individuals. Given this hard math, we need to view the fossil-fuel industry in a new light. It has become a rogue industry, reckless like no other force on Earth. It is Public Enemy Number One to the survival of our planetary civilization. "Lots of companies do rotten things in the course of their business – pay terrible wages, make people work in sweatshops – and we pressure them to change those practices," says veteran anti-corporate leader Naomi Klein, who is at work on a book about the climate crisis. "But these numbers make clear that with the fossil-fuel industry, wrecking the planet is their business model. It's what they do."<br /> According to the Carbon Tracker report, if Exxon burns its current reserves, it would use up more than seven percent of the available atmospheric space between us and the risk of two degrees. BP is just behind, followed by the Russian firm Gazprom, then Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell, each of which would fill between three and four percent. Taken together, just these six firms, of the 200 listed in the Carbon Tracker report, would use up more than a quarter of the remaining two-degree budget. Severstal, the Russian mining giant, leads the list of coal companies, followed by firms like BHP Billiton and Peabody. The numbers are simply staggering – this industry, and this industry alone, holds the power to change the physics and chemistry of our planet, and they're planning to use it.<br /> They're clearly cognizant of global warming – they employ some of the world's best scientists, after all, and they're bidding on all those oil leases made possible by the staggering melt of Arctic ice. And yet they relentlessly search for more hydrocarbons – in early March, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson told Wall Street analysts that the company plans to spend $37 billion a year through 2016 (about $100 million a day) searching for yet more oil and gas.<br /> There's not a more reckless man on the planet than Tillerson. Late last month, on the same day the Colorado fires reached their height, he told a New York audience that global warming is real, but dismissed it as an "engineering problem" that has "engineering solutions." Such as? "Changes to weather patterns that move crop-production areas around – we'll adapt to that." This in a week when Kentucky farmers were reporting that corn kernels were "aborting" in record heat, threatening a spike in global food prices. "The fear factor that people want to throw out there to say, 'We just have to stop this,' I do not accept," Tillerson said. Of course not – if he did accept it, he'd have to keep his reserves in the ground. Which would cost him money. It's not an engineering problem, in other words – it's a greed problem.<br /> You could argue that this is simply in the nature of these companies – that having found a profitable vein, they're compelled to keep mining it, more like efficient automatons than people with free will. But as the Supreme Court has made clear, they are people of a sort. In fact, thanks to the size of its bankroll, the fossil-fuel industry has far more free will than the rest of us. These companies don't simply exist in a world whose hungers they fulfill – they help create the boundaries of that world.<br /> Left to our own devices, citizens might decide to regulate carbon and stop short of the brink; according to a recent poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans would back an international agreement that cut carbon emissions 90 percent by 2050. But we aren't left to our own devices. The Koch brothers, for instance, have a combined wealth of $50 billion, meaning they trail only Bill Gates on the list of richest Americans. They've made most of their money in hydrocarbons, they know any system to regulate carbon would cut those profits, and they reportedly plan to lavish as much as $200 million on this year's elections. In 2009, for the first time, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce surpassed both the Republican and Democratic National Committees on political spending; the following year, more than 90 percent of the Chamber's cash went to GOP candidates, many of whom deny the existence of global warming. Not long ago, the Chamber even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon – should the world's scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, "populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations." As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there.<br /> Environmentalists, understandably, have been loath to make the fossil-fuel industry their enemy, respecting its political power and hoping instead to convince these giants that they should turn away from coal, oil and gas and transform themselves more broadly into "energy companies." Sometimes that strategy appeared to be working – emphasis on appeared. Around the turn of the century, for instance, BP made a brief attempt to restyle itself as "Beyond Petroleum," adapting a logo that looked like the sun and sticking solar panels on some of its gas stations. But its investments in alternative energy were never more than a tiny fraction of its budget for hydrocarbon exploration, and after a few years, many of those were wound down as new CEOs insisted on returning to the company's "core business." In December, BP finally closed its solar division. Shell shut down its solar and wind efforts in 2009. The five biggest oil companies have made more than $1 trillion in profits since the millennium – there's simply too much money to be made on oil and gas and coal to go chasing after zephyrs and sunbeams.<br /> Much of that profit stems from a single historical accident: Alone among businesses, the fossil-fuel industry is allowed to dump its main waste, carbon dioxide, for free. Nobody else gets that break – if you own a restaurant, you have to pay someone to cart away your trash, since piling it in the street would breed rats. But the fossil-fuel industry is different, and for sound historical reasons: Until a quarter-century ago, almost no one knew that CO2 was dangerous. But now that we understand that carbon is heating the planet and acidifying the oceans, its price becomes the central issue.<br /> If you put a price on carbon, through a direct tax or other methods, it would enlist markets in the fight against global warming. Once Exxon has to pay for the damage its carbon is doing to the atmosphere, the price of its products would rise. Consumers would get a strong signal to use less fossil fuel – every time they stopped at the pump, they'd be reminded that you don't need a semimilitary vehicle to go to the grocery store. The economic playing field would now be a level one for nonpolluting energy sources. And you could do it all without bankrupting citizens – a so-called "fee-and-dividend" scheme would put a hefty tax on coal and gas and oil, then simply divide up the proceeds, sending everyone in the country a check each month for their share of the added costs of carbon. By switching to cleaner energy sources, most people would actually come out ahead.<br /> There's only one problem: Putting a price on carbon would reduce the profitability of the fossil-fuel industry. After all, the answer to the question "How high should the price of carbon be?" is "High enough to keep those carbon reserves that would take us past two degrees safely in the ground." The higher the price on carbon, the more of those reserves would be worthless. The fight, in the end, is about whether the industry will succeed in its fight to keep its special pollution break alive past the point of climate catastrophe, or whether, in the economists' parlance, we'll make them internalize those externalities.<br /> <span style="color: black; float: left; font-size: 35pt; line-height: 0.7; margin: 0.13em 0.1em 0 0;">I</span>t's not clear, of course, that the power of the fossil-fuel industry can be broken. The U.K. analysts who wrote the Carbon Tracker report and drew attention to these numbers had a relatively modest goal – they simply wanted to remind investors that climate change poses a very real risk to the stock prices of energy companies. Say something so big finally happens (a giant hurricane swamps Manhattan, a megadrought wipes out Midwest agriculture) that even the political power of the industry is inadequate to restrain legislators, who manage to regulate carbon. Suddenly those Chevron reserves would be a lot less valuable, and the stock would tank. Given that risk, the Carbon Tracker report warned investors to lessen their exposure, hedge it with some big plays in alternative energy.<br /> "The regular process of economic evolution is that businesses are left with stranded assets all the time," says Nick Robins, who runs HSBC's Climate Change Centre. "Think of film cameras, or typewriters. The question is not whether this will happen. It will. Pension systems have been hit by the dot-com and credit crunch. They'll be hit by this." Still, it hasn't been easy to convince investors, who have shared in the oil industry's record profits. "The reason you get bubbles," sighs Leaton, "is that everyone thinks they're the best analyst – that they'll go to the edge of the cliff and then jump back when everyone else goes over."<br /> So pure self-interest probably won't spark a transformative challenge to fossil fuel. But moral outrage just might – and that's the real meaning of this new math. It could, plausibly, give rise to a real movement.<br /> Once, in recent corporate history, anger forced an industry to make basic changes. That was the campaign in the 1980s demanding divestment from companies doing business in South Africa. It rose first on college campuses and then spread to municipal and state governments; 155 campuses eventually divested, and by the end of the decade, more than 80 cities, 25 states and 19 counties had taken some form of binding economic action against companies connected to the apartheid regime. "The end of apartheid stands as one of the crowning accomplishments of the past century," as Archbishop Desmond Tutu put it, "but we would not have succeeded without the help of international pressure," especially from "the divestment movement of the 1980s."<br /> The fossil-fuel industry is obviously a tougher opponent, and even if you could force the hand of particular companies, you'd still have to figure out a strategy for dealing with all the sovereign nations that, in effect, act as fossil-fuel companies. But the link for college students is even more obvious in this case. If their college's endowment portfolio has fossil-fuel stock, then their educations are being subsidized by investments that guarantee they won't have much of a planet on which to make use of their degree. (The same logic applies to the world's largest investors, pension funds, which are also theoretically interested in the future – that's when their members will "enjoy their retirement.") "Given the severity of the climate crisis, a comparable demand that our institutions dump stock from companies that are destroying the planet would not only be appropriate but effective," says Bob Massie, a former anti-apartheid activist who helped found the Investor Network on Climate Risk. "The message is simple: We have had enough. We must sever the ties with those who profit from climate change – now."<br /> Movements rarely have predictable outcomes. But any campaign that weakens the fossil-fuel industry's political standing clearly increases the chances of retiring its special breaks. Consider President Obama's signal achievement in the climate fight, the large increase he won in mileage requirements for cars. Scientists, environmentalists and engineers had advocated such policies for decades, but until Detroit came under severe financial pressure, it was politically powerful enough to fend them off. If people come to understand the cold, mathematical truth – that the fossil-fuel industry is systematically undermining the planet's physical systems – it might weaken it enough to matter politically. Exxon and their ilk might drop their opposition to a fee-and-dividend solution; they might even decide to become true energy companies, this time for real.<br /> Even if such a campaign is possible, however, we may have waited too long to start it. To make a real difference – to keep us under a temperature increase of two degrees – you'd need to change carbon pricing in Washington, and then use that victory to leverage similar shifts around the world. At this point, what happens in the U.S. is most important for how it will influence China and India, where emissions are growing fastest. (In early June, researchers concluded that China has probably under-reported its emissions by up to 20 percent.) The three numbers I've described are daunting – they may define an essentially impossible future. But at least they provide intellectual clarity about the greatest challenge humans have ever faced. We know how much we can burn, and we know who's planning to burn more. Climate change operates on a geological scale and time frame, but it's not an impersonal force of nature; the more carefully you do the math, the more thoroughly you realize that this is, at bottom, a moral issue; we have met the enemy and they is Shell.<br /> Meanwhile the tide of numbers continues. The week after the Rio conference limped to its conclusion, Arctic sea ice hit the lowest level ever recorded for that date. Last month, on a single weekend, Tropical Storm Debby dumped more than 20 inches of rain on Florida – the earliest the season's fourth-named cyclone has ever arrived. At the same time, the largest fire in New Mexico history burned on, and the most destructive fire in Colorado's annals claimed 346 homes in Colorado Springs – breaking a record set the week before in Fort Collins. This month, scientists issued a new study concluding that global warming has dramatically increased the likelihood of severe heat and drought – days after a heat wave across the Plains and Midwest broke records that had stood since the Dust Bowl, threatening this year's harvest. You want a big number? In the course of this month, a quadrillion kernels of corn need to pollinate across the grain belt, something they can't do if temperatures remain off the charts. Just like us, our crops are adapted to the Holocene, the 11,000-year period of climatic stability we're now leaving... in the dust.<br /> <em>This story is from the August 2nd, 2012 issue of Rolling Stone. </em><br /> <strong>Related</strong><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622">Al Gore: Science and Truth Vs. the Merchants of Poison</a><br /><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-change-and-the-end-of-australia-20111003">Climate Change and the End of Australia</a><br /><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/as-the-world-burns-20100106">As the World Burns: Why Big Oil Is Winning on Climate Change</a><em><br /></em><br /> </div></div><div id="col3"> <div class="clearfix" id="col3_content"><br /></div></div></div></div></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2012/07/greed-and-corruption-rule-our-fate.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-8723312325145387351Sat, 19 May 2012 04:46:00 +00002012-05-18T18:58:52.588-10:00Imagine If All Schools Went Solar<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="aboveUnitContent"><div class="tlTxFe"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/SolarWorldUSA">Solar World Goes To School </a></b></span></div><div class="tlTxFe">https://www.facebook.com/SolarWorldUSA<br /><img alt="" class="img" height="261" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/582525_10150814360218595_118688663594_9579193_1167600324_n.jpg" style="left: -26.46%;" width="400" /> </div><div class="tlTxFe"></div><div class="tlTxFe">Lawrenceville High School in <a data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/page.php?id=108130629211734" href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lawrenceville-New-Jersey/108130629211734">Lawrenceville, New Jersey</a> is home to nearly 25,000 SolarWorld solar panels that are generating 6.1 megawatts of solar energy for the school. The system will offset about 90 percent of the school's annual energy usage. It's the largest ground-mount solar system installation at a U.S. primary or secondary school.<br /><a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/582525_10150814360218595_118688663594_9579193_1167600324_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a> </div></div><div class="photoUnit clearfix"><a class="uiScaledThumb photo photoWidth1" href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150814360218595&amp;set=a.282961913594.142208.118688663594&amp;type=1" rel="theater"></a></div></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2012/05/imagine-if-all-schools-went-solar.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-8335573792574410677Tue, 01 May 2012 06:18:00 +00002012-04-30T20:18:49.017-10:00The Inevitability of Solar<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><h1><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/"><span style="font-size: large;">Three Charts That Illustrate Why Solar Has Hit A True Tipping Point</span></a></h1><div class="byline"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/</a></div><div class="byline">By <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/author/stephen/">Stephen Lacey</a> on Apr 30, 2012 at 3:45 pm</div><img alt="" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-473870" height="167" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/solarroof-300x208.jpg" style="margin: 5px;" title="solarroof" width="241" />A new report from the prominent global consulting firm McKinsey shows why solar photovoltaics have hit a tipping point.<br /> As the economics of solar PV continue to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/06/261550/solar-pv-system-cost-reductions/" target="_blank" title="solar">improve steadily and dramatically</a>, McKinsey analysts conclude that the yearly “economic potential” of solar PV deployment could reach 600-1,000 gigawatts (1 million megawatts) by 2020.<br /> In the year 2000, the global demand for solar PV was 170 megawatts.<br /> That doesn’t mean 1 million megawatts will get built per year after 2020; it’s just an estimate of the economic competitiveness of solar PV. When factoring in real-word limitations like the regulatory environment, availability of financing, and infrastructure capabilities, the actual yearly market will be closer to 100 gigawatts in 2020.<br /> That could bring in more than $1 trillion in investments between 2012 to 2020.<br /> The McKinsey report, appropriately named <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/Client_Service/Sustainability/Latest_thinking/Solar_powers_next_shining" target="_blank" title="darkest">“Darkest Before Dawn,”</a> highlights three crucial factors that are giving the solar industry so much momentum&nbsp;— even with such a <a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/2011-the-return-of-the-solar-shakeout1/" target="_blank" title="shakeout">violent shakeout</a> occurring in the manufacturing sector today.<br /> <span id="more-473744"></span><br /> <strong>1.</strong> Because solar mostly competes with retail rates, the economic potential for the technology in high resource areas is far bigger than actual deployment figures would suggest. McKinsey predicts that the cost of installing a commercial-scale solar PV system will fall another 40 percent by 2015, growing the “unsubsidized economic potential” (i.e. the economic competitiveness without federal subsidies) of the technology to hundreds of gigawatts by 2020.<br /> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Screen-shot-2012-04-30-at-12.13.09-PM.png"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-473751" height="320" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Screen-shot-2012-04-30-at-12.13.09-PM.png" title="Screen shot 2012-04-30 at 12.13.09 PM" width="554" /></a><br /> <strong>2.</strong> The most important cost reductions in the next decade will come not through groundbreaking lab-scale improvements, but through incremental cost reductions due to deployment. The McKinsey analysis shows how the dramatically these cumulative cost improvements can change the economics of solar. (For more, see:<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/06/261550/solar-pv-system-cost-reductions/"> Anatomy of a Solar PV System: How to Continue “Ferocious Cost Reductions” for Solar Electricity.)</a><br /> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Screen-shot-2012-04-30-at-12.22.41-PM.png"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-473754" height="361" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Screen-shot-2012-04-30-at-12.22.41-PM.png" title="Screen shot 2012-04-30 at 12.22.41 PM" width="603" /></a><br /><strong>3.</strong> Solar is already competitive in a variety of markets today. As the chart below illustrates, there are at least three markets where solar PV competes widely today: Off-grid, isolated grids, and the commercial/residential sectors in high-resource areas. Of course, the competitiveness of the technology varies dramatically depending on a variety of local factors. But this comparison shows just how steadily the cross-over is approaching.<br /> <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Screen-shot-2012-04-30-at-12.14.20-PM.png"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-473755" height="473" src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Screen-shot-2012-04-30-at-12.14.20-PM.png" title="Screen shot 2012-04-30 at 12.14.20 PM" width="612" /></a><br /> Wait, solar is actually competitive? Didn’t the death of Solyndra mean the death of the solar industry? Addressing the solar skeptics, the McKinsey analysts counter the notion that the solar sector is down for the count:<br /> <blockquote>“Those who believe the solar industry has run its course may be surprised. Solar companies that reduce their costs, develop value propositions to target the needs of particular segments, and strategically navigate the evolving regulatory landscape can position themselves to reap significant rewards in the coming years.”</blockquote>The short-term picture for solar is extraordinarily challenging, particularly for manufacturers trying to figure out how to make a profit with such a massive oversupply of panels on the market. But this is not an industry in its death throes; these are natural pains for a disruptive, fast-growing industry. The tipping point is upon us.<br /> <div class="tags"> <h4>Tags:</h4><ul><li><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/solar-energy/">Solar Energy</a></li></ul></div><div class="post-navigation"><div class="postnav left"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473657/carol-browner-india-enormous-cleantech-opportunity/" rel="prev"><img src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/themes/tp3/images/arrow_fat_left.gif" /> &nbsp;Previous in TP Climate Progress</a> </div><div class="postnav right"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/446908/global-warming-is-doubling-bark-beetle-mating-boosting-tree-attacks-up-to-60-fold-study-finds/" rel="next">Next in TP Climate Progress &nbsp;<img src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/themes/tp3/images/arrow_fat_right.gif" /></a></div></div><a href="" name="comment_link"></a> <h3 id="comments-title">11 Responses to <em>Three Charts That Illustrate Why Solar Has Hit A True Tipping Point</em></h3><ol class="commentlist"><li class="comment even thread-even depth-1 parent" id="comment-378855"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378855"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn">Anne van der Bom</cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378855"> April 30, 2012 at 5:04 pm</a> </div>Those cost projections for The Netherlands in the residential sector are already outdated. See this <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378922" rel="nofollow">price list</a> of a well known installer with good reputation. You can have an average system (around 3 kW) installed for about 2 euros per Watt peak including VAT. DIY is very doable and a lot cheaper. No permits required.<br /> Let’s assume an expected lifetime of 20 years, a yield of 1 kWh per watt peak per annum, and an interest of 5%. My spreadsheet says the price per kWh is 16 eurocents, including 19% VAT. That is 21 dollarcent per kWh. This report still says 30 cents. It is scary how fast costs are falling. Average rate here is 22 cents per kWh.<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378855#respond">Reply</a> </div></div><ul class="children"><li class="comment odd alt depth-2" id="comment-378872"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378872"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="http://bigfootmarine.com/" rel="external nofollow">Leif</a></cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378872"> April 30, 2012 at 7:09 pm</a> </div>My panels have been stress tested to 60 years with zero failure rate.<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378872#respond">Reply</a> </div></div></li></ul></li><li class="comment even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-378868"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378868"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="http://netzeronyc2020.net/" rel="external nofollow">fj</a></cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378868"> April 30, 2012 at 6:38 pm</a> </div>The report also indicates the potential for healthy growth in the finance industry creating real value in secure financial instruments funding the photovoltaic buildout.<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378868#respond">Reply</a> </div></div></li><li class="comment odd alt thread-even depth-1 parent" id="comment-378870"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378870"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn">Tom King</cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378870"> April 30, 2012 at 6:50 pm</a> </div>No matter how cheap solar gets, we can’t rely solely on market forces to eliminate fossil fuels. The problem is that green energy will reduce the demand and therefore the price of dirty energy. There needs to be trade agreements that stop imports from carbon based economies.<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378870#respond">Reply</a> </div></div><ul class="children"><li class="comment even depth-2 parent" id="comment-378873"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378873"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="http://netzeronyc2020.net/" rel="external nofollow">fj</a></cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378873"> April 30, 2012 at 7:10 pm</a> </div>Yep, the existing market is phony since natural services are not considered to have any value when the reality is just the opposite; and it should be just the opposite from so-called conventional market methods when valuing systems, i.e., natural including human capital first.<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378873#respond">Reply</a> </div></div><ul class="children"><li class="comment odd alt depth-3 parent" id="comment-378876"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378876"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn">Tom King</cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378876"> April 30, 2012 at 7:40 pm</a> </div>“the existing market is phony since natural services are not considered to have any value when the reality is just the opposite”<br /> Such a succinct way of describing a fairly complex situation deserves to be admired and repeated.<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378876#respond">Reply</a> </div></div><ul class="children"><li class="comment even depth-4" id="comment-378883"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378883"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn">Mulga Mumblebrain</cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378883"> April 30, 2012 at 7:59 pm</a> </div>The market fundamentalist loonies see the economy as the bedrock reality of existence, and the ecology as, at best, a sub-set of the economy, or, more often, a mere ‘externality’, that can be ignored. This sort of magical thinking, irrational, unscientific and frankly deranged, is required by all adherents of the ‘Market Cult’. The Market has replaced God, Gaia, Nature, Reality as the supreme deity. The maniacs actually believe nonsense such as that remedying all ecological crises is merely a question of getting the ‘price signals’ right, then leaving it to the Market. Humanity is being driven to destruction by deranged simpletons who fancy themselves sages.<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378883#respond">Reply</a> </div></div></li></ul></li></ul></li><li class="comment odd alt depth-2 parent" id="comment-378881"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378881"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="http://www.andrewrlong.com/" rel="external nofollow">Andrew R. Long (@DrewRLong)</a></cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378881"> April 30, 2012 at 7:53 pm</a> </div>What do you think about carbon fee and dividend? We’d like to pass this law in the U.S. and return 100% of the proceeds to the ratepayer. Start at $10 per ton of emitted C02 and increase $10-15 per year through 2020. Thoughts?<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378881#respond">Reply</a> </div></div><ul class="children"><li class="comment even depth-3" id="comment-378918"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378918"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="http://bigfootmarine.com/" rel="external nofollow">Leif</a></cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378918"> May 1, 2012 at 12:57 am</a> </div>I am a “People” and come from a long line of “people.” If I throw a paper cup out the car window, Bingo, ~ $100+ fine. Corpro /People, a new kid on the block, gets to fill the air, water, dirt and seas with toxin. Even the tit milk the Daughter-in-Law feeds the grand kidder has some of those toxins, yet Corpro/People get to profit Big Time. Even get my tax dollars! What gives. You try spreading toxins around the neighborhood, even Real Thin and give me a report. Shake a broken CFL over each yard in turn,(still less than the proximity of a coal plant). Time Cropro/People learn to play nice with others.<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378918#respond">Reply</a> </div></div></li><li class="comment odd alt depth-3" id="comment-378921"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378921"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn">Mulga Mumblebrain</cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378921"> May 1, 2012 at 2:09 am</a> </div>Andrew, I think that it would be preferable to keep some of the proceeds aside for renewable research and development, and for the urgent need to address ecological repair. 100% could be returned to the poorest, and lesser amounts the higher up the income and wealth (inverted) pyramid you go.<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378921#respond">Reply</a> </div></div></li></ul></li></ul></li><li class="comment even thread-odd thread-alt depth-1" id="comment-378917"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378917"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn">ibsteve2u</cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378917"> May 1, 2012 at 12:51 am</a> </div>If you’re of a mind, there is a way you can use your idle computer time to do research into finding polymers to replace or augment the current silicon-based photovoltaics, thus opening up new methods of deployment and preventing the recurrence of more collusive monopolies of corporations and/or nations such as now manipulate the supply of energy:<br /> <a href="http://cleanenergy.harvard.edu/" rel="nofollow">http://cleanenergy.harvard.edu</a><br /> I’d note that the existing energy monopolies have a lot to do with the funding and direction of “the right”; breaking them would literally be a blow for freedom and our planet – and so the children of our world.<br /> <div class="reply"> <a class="comment-reply-link" href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/?replytocom=378917#respond">Reply</a> </div></div></li><li class="comment odd alt thread-even depth-1" id="comment-378922"> <div class="comment-body" id="div-comment-378922"> <div class="comment-author vcard"> <cite class="fn"><a class="url" href="http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/" rel="external nofollow">Jonathan Cole</a></cite> <span class="says">says:</span> </div><em class="comment-awaiting-moderation">Your comment is awaiting moderation.</em> <br /> <div class="comment-meta commentmetadata"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473744/three-charts-that-illustrate-why-solar-has-hit-a-true-tipping-point/#comment-378922"> May 1, 2012 at 2:11 am</a> </div>The Millenium hath come! The rebels are coming out of the blogwork to state in ever stronger ways, the obvious. We have what we need without any new inventions, only some creative integrated engineering to make pre-fab solar enrgy appliances that are UL approved and can be simply plugged into the home the way you plug in a refrigerator. Anybody can do it, no permit required. Take a look at <a href="http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/p/shedding-light-on-solar.html" rel="nofollow">http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/p/shedding-light-on-solar.html</a><br /> I am already building integrated pre-fab systems. The problem is, the most practical approaches don’t fit the National Electric Code. Until we get stupid rules to give way, we are doomed to repeat the past, until we are history.<br /> Jonathan Cole<br />Founder<br />Light on the Earth Systems</div></li></ol></div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2012/04/inevitability-of-solar.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-3618531957020325892Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:51:00 +00002012-03-06T09:58:15.208-10:00Fast Track To A Solar World<div class="span-32"> <h1 class="headline"><a href="http://grist.org/solar-power/rooftop-revolution-how-to-get-solar-onto-100-million-u-s-homes/"><span style="font-size:100%;">Rooftop revolution: How to get solar onto 100 million U.S. homes</span></a></h1><p><a href="http://grist.org/solar-power/rooftop-revolution-how-to-get-solar-onto-100-million-u-s-homes/">http://grist.org/solar-power/rooftop-revolution-how-to-get-solar-onto-100-million-u-s-homes/</a><br /></p><time class="dateline" pubdate="" datetime="2012-03-06T12:36:03+00:00">6 Mar 2012 12:36 PM By David Roberts</time> </div> <section class="article-body clearfix"> <p><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-65575" title="Image (2) solar-roofs-gone-wild_h240.jpg for post 22813" src="http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/solar-roofs-gone-wild_h240.jpg" alt="solar on homes" height="176" width="240" />Get a load of this:</p> <blockquote><p><strong>Nearly 100 million Americans could install over 60,000 megawatts of solar at less than grid prices – without subsidies – by 2021.</strong></p></blockquote> <p>That’s from a new report by <a href="http://grist.org/author/john-farrell/">John Farrell</a> at the <a href="http://ilsr.org/">Institute for Local Self-Reliance</a> called “<a href="http://energyselfreliantstates.org/content/rooftop-revolution-changing-everything-cost-effective-local-solar">Rooftop Revolution: Changing Everything with Cost-Effective Local Solar</a>.”</p> <p>It’s about the spread of “solar grid parity” over the next 10 years, where grid parity is defined as “when the cost of solar electricity — without subsidies — is equal to or lower than the residential retail electricity rate.” People often talk about grid parity as if it’s some magic moment, but in fact it will happen in different places at different times, depending on local conditions and electricity prices. And it’s a moving target: It depends on how fast the cost of solar falls and how fast electricity rates rise.</p> <p><span id="more-85270"></span>Farrell says that the “installed cost of solar has fallen 10% per year since 2006 and grid electricity prices have averaged a 2% annual increase in the last decade.” In his projections, he uses 7 percent annual decline for solar costs and 2 percent for electricity increases, which seems conservative but reasonable. Obviously either of those rates could change, but almost everything I’ve read and heard predicts rising electricity rates; the rate of solar cost decline is somewhat harder to predict. As a technophile, my money is on the cost of solar falling faster than expected.</p> <p>Anyway, given those assumptions, here’s a <a href="http://energyselfreliantstates.org/content/mapping-solar-grid-parity">map that shows how and when solar grid parity will spread</a>.</p> <p>By 2021, some 100 million people in the top 40 U.S. metropolitan areas will be at grid parity for residential rooftop solar. The number is larger if you take into account people living outside those areas. It expands again if you assume widespread <a href="http://polizeros.com/2012/02/08/time-of-use-pricing-for-electricity-in-california/">time-of-use pricing</a>. And of course it expands a whole lot more if you include non-residential (commercial and industrial) rooftops. Like so:</p> <p><img style="width: 464px; height: 263px;" src="http://energyselfreliantstates.org/sites/energyselfreliantstates.org/files/solar-grid-parity-universe_1_0.png" alt="." /></p> <p>Two big things to note about this:</p> <p>1. Obviously this doesn’t mean 100 million people will have solar on their roofs in 2021. That’s just the cost-effective potential. To exploit that potential will require smart changes in policy. Farrell mentions several state laws and regulations — lower permitting fees, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering">net metering</a>, the like — but I want to emphasize his recommendations on subsidies.</p> <p>Right now, there’s a federal solar tax credit of 30 percent that is set to expire in 2016. Tax credits are pretty crappy policy. They <a href="http://grist.org/article/2011-12-09-solar-for-schools-not-so-easy-with-tax-based-solar-incentives/">exclude the public sector</a> and <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/2010-11-17-why-tax-credits-make-lousy-renewable-energy-policy/">raise transaction costs</a> to the point that tax credits are <a href="http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2011/03/bpc-study-finds-opportunity-more-efficient-federal-renewable-energy-ince"> twice as expensive as cash grants</a>. Keeping the solar tax credit perpetually in place would mostly enrich big solar developers … but dropping it abruptly would hurt the solar market.</p> <p>The best option is to phase out the tax credit over time in favor of a <a href="http://grist.org/solar-power/2011-10-26-which-are-cheaper-tradeable-credits-or-feed-in-tariffs/">less expensive</a> policy responsible for <a href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/08/10/nrel-study-finds-feed-in-tariffs-are-responsible-for-75-of-all-solar-pv-deployments/">75 percent of the world’s solar PV</a> and 45 percent of its wind power: <a href="http://www.newrules.org/energy/publications/feedin-tariffs-america-driving-economy-renewable-energy-policy-works">feed-in tariffs</a>. Feed-in tariffs — which apparently we’re now supposed to call <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/clean_contracts.html">CLEAN contracts</a> (for Clean Local Energy Accessible Now) — pay people for creating clean energy and feeding it into the grid. If done right, CLEAN contracts could replace America’s entire tangled web of tax rebates, incentives, state mandates, and utility programs with something far simpler, more transparent, and more predictable. CLEAN money could phase out over time as costs drop, as is now happening in Germany.</p> <p>We could exploit the full potential of solar, but that would require [gasp] <em>planning</em>, and planning is socialist, so oh well.</p> <p>2. If 100 million people had residential rooftop solar, they’d still only be producing roughly 2 percent of the electricity consumed in the U.S. But electricity generation isn’t the only story here. That’s almost a third of the U.S. population!</p> <p>That means a whole lot of voters — voters in Florida, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada — with direct experience being energy producers as well as consumers. They will come to understand the value of local, <a href="http://www.good.is/post/what-distributed-energy-looks-like/">distributed energy</a> in a tangible way and serve as a political force for its expansion. That’s what has <a href="http://grist.org/energy-policy/2011-04-20-germans-pay-extra-for-clean-energy-why-dont-americans/">happened in Germany</a>. Smart energy policy doesn’t just create energy; it creates a constituency.</p> <p>It can also be argued that locally owned solar has greater economic benefits (more jobs, spread more widely, and more money circulating in local economies) and greater benefits to the grid (avoided transmission, <a href="http://www.northernpacificpower.com/commercial/peak-shaving/">peak shaving</a>) than absentee-owned power plants.</p> <p>Energy policy is not just about numbers. It’s not even just about energy. It cannot be separated from economic development or social change. Energy democracy — local ownership, local benefits, local autonomy — ought to be an explicit goal of policy. In part that means planning ahead to take full advantage of solar’s extraordinary potential.</p> </section> <p>David Roberts is a staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at <a href="http://twitter.com/drgrist" rel="nofollow">twitter.com/drgrist</a>.</p>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2012/03/rooftop-revolution-how-to-get-solar.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-7533589003221984085Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:32:00 +00002011-12-24T12:00:23.491-10:00EIA of Geothermal Projects in Iceland<span style="font-family:Arial;">Posted with permission from the Authors.<br /></span><!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:applybreakingrules/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Bali</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">, </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Indonesia</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">, 25-29 April 2010</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Environmental Impact Assessment of Geothermal Projects in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Albert Albertsson, Asbjorn Blondal, Bjorn H. Barkarson, </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Sigridur Dr.</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> Jonsdottir and Stefan Gunnar Thors</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">HS Orka Ltd., Brekkustig 36, 260 Reykjanesbaer, </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">. VSO Consulting, Borgartuni 20, 105 </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Reykjavik</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">, </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><a href="mailto:albert@hs.is">albert@hs.is</a>, <a href="mailto:asbjorn@hs.is">asbjorn@hs.is</a>, <a href="mailto:bjornh@vso.is">bjornh@vso.is</a>, <a href="mailto:sigridurj@vso.is">sigridurj@vso.is</a>, <a href="mailto:stefan@vso.is">stefan@vso.is</a> Keywords: Environmental impact assessment, consultation, geothermal power plants.</span></p> <h1><span style="font-size:12.0pt;">ABSTRACT</span></h1> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">There are some fundamental differences between energy projects in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> which have consequences for the efficiency and function of the EIA process. Most of the hydropower projects are well defined projects, i.e., the design, size and magnitude of the project is known when assessing the impact of the project. The characteristics of geothermal utilization can be very different. The utilization of geothermal energy is dynamic in nature, where the information is being gathered and processed continuously during the time of utilization. The paper discusses how the EIA Act and EIA process in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> function for geothermal projects and if it should be more flexible for such dynamic projects. The paper reviews geothermal projects, describing the main benefits and problems relating to the EIA process as well as the process of applying for consents and permits under various acts. The paper discusses possible solutions to the problems accounted for example using tools of planning, allowing more flexibility in the EIA, implementing more consultation among interest parties and agencies, and using area approach instead of structural approach.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">1.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>INTRODUCTION</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Since the year 1993, the legislation and the process concerning environmental impact assessment (EIA) in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">, have been evolving. During this period, much emphasis has been on projects like hydropower plants and roads. The last few years more emphasis on geothermal development has cast a new light on the EIA process its purpose. Some points have proven positive and some have raised questions about whether the current process suits projects with dynamic nature like in the geothermal exploration and development. The purpose of this paper is to give some insight into the Icelandic EIA process and how it has been employed in the geothermal field.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">2.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>THE BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) IN </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">ICELAND</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">In the year 1993 the Icelandic government legalized the EU Directive number 85/337/EBE with the Environmental Impact Assessment Act no. 63/1993 (EIAA). In the year 2000 a new EU directive (Directive 97/11/EB) came into effect and changes in the Icelandic EIAA followed. In the year 2005 the EIAA was changed once again but this time exclusively on the initiative of the Icelandic government.</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">2.1<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>The Environmental Impact Assessment Act and the</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">EIA Process</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">2.1.1<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Geothermal Projects Subject to Assessment</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Geothermal power stations and other thermal power installations with a heat output of 50 MW or more and other power producing units with an output of 10 MWe or more are always subject to an EIA.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">In the year 2000 a more fundamental screening process was implied as part of the EIAA. Projects which may have substantial impacts on the environment are assessed on a case-by-case basis, regarding the nature, size and location to determine whether they shall be subject to an environmental impact assessment. For geothermal projects that fit into that category are deep drilling, in particular drilling of production wells and exploration wells in hightemperature geothermal regions.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">In addition projects which are subject to an environmental impact assessment and are planned in the same area or are contingent upon one another may be assessed jointly, e.g.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>geothermal power station subject to assessment and the adjacent power lines.</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">2.1.2<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Scoping Document</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">If a project is subject to an impact assessment the developer shall submit a scoping document. A scoping document contains a description of the project, the project site and alternatives which could be considered. The scoping document also proposes which aspects of the project and of the environment will be illustrated and what data will be gathered.</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">2.1.3<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Initial Environmental Impact Statement (IEIS)</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Following a scoping document the developer publishes a report on the project’s environmental impact assessment.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This report, the initial environmental impact statement, has to be consistent with the scoping document.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">In the IEIS the project’s possible environmental impacts, cumulative and synergic, direct and indirect are discussed.</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">2.1.4<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">An Environmental impact statement is the final report of the environmental impact assessment for a project. The statement is based on the IEIS and the consultation, opinions and comments from governmental agencies, municipalities and the public.</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">2.1.5<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Review</span></p> <p class="MsoList4"><span style="font-family:Arial;">All the previous steps are subject to review by the public,</span></p> <p class="MsoList4"><span style="font-family:Arial;">public agencies and authorities. Within four weeks of</span></p> <p class="MsoList4"><span style="font-family:Arial;">receiving the environmental impact statement, the National</span></p> <p class="MsoList4"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Planning Agency (NPA) shall deliver a reasoned opinion on</span></p> <p class="MsoList4"><span style="font-family:Arial;">whether the report meets the criteria of the EIAA and</span></p> <p class="MsoList4"><span style="font-family:Arial;">whether the environmental impact is satisfactorily</span></p> <p class="MsoList4"><span style="font-family:Arial;">described. The NPA’s opinion shall explain the main</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">premises of the assessment, including the quality of the data on which the assessment is based and its conclusions. </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-szoVZc8On68/TvZIsDA0o0I/AAAAAAAAAPo/fP4ONaTzy1k/s1600/Alberstson%2Bchart.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 672px; height: 448px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-szoVZc8On68/TvZIsDA0o0I/AAAAAAAAAPo/fP4ONaTzy1k/s320/Alberstson%2Bchart.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5689815100789400386" border="0" /></a></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Figure 1: Number of geothermal development projects in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> assessed case-by-case whether they were subject to EIA 2000-2008.</span></p><span style="font-family:Arial;">2.2<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Geothermal projects in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> and EIA</span> <p class="MsoListContinue2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">For the period 2000 to 2008, 29 geothermal development projects were assessed case-by-case whether they were subject to an EIA (Error! Reference source not found.).</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Six of these projects were subject to an EIA of which five </span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">were exploration drillings and one was due to changes in</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">current project development. The projects are all situated in</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">high temperature areas, on the southwest coast,</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Reykjanesskagi and Hellisheiði, and on the northeast coast,</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Krafla and Þeistareykir. One project of these 29 was</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">situated in low temperature area.From the year 1994 to</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">2008, 14 geothermal projects were subject to an EIA and</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">most of them during the last eight years. The first Icelandic</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">EIA undertaken for a geothermal project dealt with</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">exploration drilling. Some of the EIA cases are for one and</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">the same geothermal development project, due to</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">enlargement of an existing power plant or additional</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>drilling of production wells or reinjection wells. Since the year 2000 geothermal projects are <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>13% of the total EIA cases in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">3.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>THE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">GEOTHERMAL PROJECTS IN </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">ICELAND</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">For geothermal projects it is necessary to apply for various permits. The number of permits varies with the nature of the project, e.g. whether permits are applied for a power plant of some kind or for drilling production or exploration wells. Table 1 displays an overview of the application process for geothermal projects in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">, which permits are applied for and what legal body issues these permits.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The process also includes changes in land use plans in the given area. The developer is responsible for applying for these permits.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">4.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>THE NATURE OF GEOTHERMAL PROJECTS</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Geothermal projects are different from most other projects that have to comply with the EIA act. Whereas for example hydropower plants can in a way been looked at as a static projects the geothermal projects are of a dynamic nature.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">This is due to:</span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Difficulties in long term and even short term</span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-family:Arial;">projection of the reservoir behavior</span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Reinjection schemes, depending on a number of variables not known in the beginning of the exploration phase</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The exact location of facilities not exactly known and to a great extent depending on drilling results</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Number of drilling pads needed depending on the nature and evolution of the reservoir</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">What impact earthquakes can have on the reservoir data not known</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Possible modifications of the steam/brine system and the power plant needed in case of steam cap development and/or effects of earth quakes</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Possible changes with time of the chemistry of the geothermal fluid</span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The information gathered in the exploration phase can have a significant effect on the size, location and the overall design of the project. Hence, the geothermal projects are dynamic not static as many other EIA projects such as hydropower projects, roads and aluminum smelters. Due to this, some have questioned whether the EIA process in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> takes into consideration this fundamental difference of the geothermal projects.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The time of preparation, exploration, research and engineering design of geothermal power plants is longer than for most other EIA projects. This is mainly due to the nature of the geothermal resource. Today it is common in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> that it takes 10 to 13 years to develop a geothermal green field project.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Due to the nature of the geothermal resource, the outcome of the different surveys undertaken at a very early stage of the project and which is the basic data for the EIA is just indicative for the real, short and long term impact the project imposes on the environment. The cost of the preparation and research is known to be considerable.</span></p> <p class="MsoList2" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Geothermal developments need rather extensive exploration area as well as rather large area for production wells, reinjection wells and associated facilities. Today the tendency is to minimize the impact area as much as possible. This has in some cases led to very unfavorable and difficult operation of the geothermal field. </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Table 1: Permits and Processes for Geothermal Projects in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IFVF5XrfoAA/TvZKSDZpnBI/AAAAAAAAAQA/hzSkuKODorc/s1600/permits.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 681px; height: 505px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IFVF5XrfoAA/TvZKSDZpnBI/AAAAAAAAAQA/hzSkuKODorc/s320/permits.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5689816853240192018" border="0" /></a></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Geothermal projects are preferably developed in steps.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The overall experience gained from the operation of a preceding step is the basis for the design of the succeeding step. In this way the evolvement with time of the geothermal reservoir and the technology is coped with. A succeeding step to one or several steps in operation can for example be increased steam production with associated increased reinjection for power generation or other industrial usage which in turn calls for more wells to be drilled and more facilities to be built. The very nature of geothermal projects is therefore dynamic in the sense that they are continuously evolving during the entire life span of the resource harnessed. In many cases these steps are also subject to an EIA.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">5.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF GEOTHERMAL</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">PROJECTS</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Environmental impact resulting from geothermal development varies during the different phases of<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>development and between sites. Kristmannsdóttir and Ármannsson (2003) have listed the main environmental issues involved in geothermal development:</span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Surface disturbances</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Physical effects of fluid withdrawal</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Noise</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Thermal effects</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Chemical pollution</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Biological effects</span></span></p> <p class="MsoListBullet2"><span style="font-family:Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family:Symbol;mso-bidi-font-family:Symbol;" ><span style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></span></span><span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Protection of natural features</span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Geothermal exploration usually occurs in pristine areas characterized by volcanic activity, geothermal surface activity and geological formations. Ecosystems, both flora and fauna, are adapted to warm soils. Development includes roads, well pads and drilling of geothermal wells and groundwater and/or sea water wells. There is also deposition of waste soil and drill fluid including drill cuttings and mud.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>During flow testing of wells, steam and spray has shown to have temporarily adverse effect on the local vegetation with moss and grass being scalded. Noise follows flow testing of wells and can have negative effect on wildlife, tourists and local people.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">If results from exploration are positive, development may continue. This can include more roads, well pads, pipelines, power plant, associated buildings and transmission lines.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Geothermal power generation usually causes air pollution due to the emission geothermal gas from brine flashing, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide adding to the greenhouse gas effect and hydrogen sulfide being poisonous in high concentration.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Gas concentration in emission varies to a great extent from one geothermal site to another. During operation, subsidence and induced seismicity are possible effects as is change in geothermal surface activity. Discharge of hot water and/or geothermal fluid from geothermal power generation can cause problems whereas the fluid can contain high concentration of various chemicals which may cause threat to living organs.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>EXPERIENCE OF THE EIA FOR GEOTHERMAL</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">PROJECTS IN </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">ICELAND</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">A few key issues should be noted from the brief history of EIA for geothermal projects in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">. This concerns the nature of geothermal projects, consultation in the EIA process, information and data concerning the key environmental factors affected by geothermal development and different vested interests in the geothermal development sites.</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.1<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Consultation</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.1.1<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Consultation Bodies</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The EIA process for geothermal projects involves consultation with public agencies, local and governmental authorities, Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) and other stakeholders. By consulting with bodies involved in the EIA process at the early stages of each project, different views emerge which can be discussed and resolved before the project is fully developed.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">In geothermal projects the Environment Agency, the National Energy Authority, local authorities, local Health Inspectorates, NGO’s and the Icelandic travel industry are considered as necessary consultation bodies. The National Planning Agency however plays a key role in the overall EIA process and should be consulted on regular basis.</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.1.2<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Consultation during Scoping</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Scoping document should be prepared in close consultation with the above mentioned parties. This is to ensure that all available data is included and that necessary research is planned for. Not doing so can cause delay and increase the cost of the project whereas research is time consuming and, in some instances, can only take place at a specific point in time of the year. This applies especially to ecological research. During preparation of scoping document meetings should be held where maps are presented and preliminary information regarding the project development is introduced, including energy output and input, effluent treatment, construction plans and available information on the development area.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Experience reveals that consultation does not need to be formal. Meetings can be informal but minutes of meetings are essential. These meetings can open up potential moments for deliberation. Matters discussed at consultation meetings should be addressed in the environmental impact statement.</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.1.3<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Consultation for Environmental Impact Statement After reviewing research and exploration results and other</span></p> <p class="MsoList4"><span style="font-family:Arial;">gathered data for a geothermal site, meetings with</span></p> <p class="MsoList4"><span style="font-family:Arial;">consultation bodies should be arranged as often as</span></p> <p class="MsoList4"><span style="font-family:Arial;">considered necessary. This allows for deliberation</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-family:Arial;">concerning development of the overall project and </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-family:Arial;">probable effects on the environment. This working </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-family:Arial;">procedure usually raises questions at a point in time </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-family:Arial;">in the development process when it is still possible </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-family:Arial;">to make adjustments and plan for mitigation measures.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Developers and consultation parties do not always agree on what to emphasize on in the EIA but it is very important to address all those points at an early stage. The purpose of the EIA process is not halting the development of a project but to help public officials and the developer to make informed decisions that are based on an understanding of environmental consequences and take proper action before necessary permits are granted.</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.1.4<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Consultation and Participation The main objective of public participation in the EIA process is that different views emerge and that all</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">stakeholders are involved in the decision-making. This does not necessarily lead to decisions that are beneficial for the environment but can help reaching reconciliation.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Public participation in the EIA process is developing in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> as well as elsewhere (Isaksson, 2009). A detailed framework does not exist on how this is best accomplished.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Two geothermal EIA cases in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> show great disparity in public participation and interest.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The first case is the development of a new 135 MWe geothermal power plant in Hellisheidi area in year 2007. The proposed development is located in a scenic area with much geothermal activity on the surface. Gas emissions may cause negative impact on air quality and debate is on whether the harnessing can be considered sustainable. The EIA process sparked a lively discussion about the project. During the development of the environmental impact statement (EIS), a total of 675 individuals commented on the content of the document or the process of which 564 were unanimous. In addition a number of news articles were published.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">In contrast during the EIA process for an 80-100 MWe enlargement of an existing geothermal power plant in Reykjanes in year 2009 no comment was given by the general public on the proposed project. This development was also intended in a scenic area with much geothermal surface activity, popular as tourist destination.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The reviewing process for both cases revealed a number of remarks from public agencies, local and governmental authorities including serious comments from the National Energy Authority.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The reason for this huge difference in public involvement is not clear but something sparked the interest in one case but not the other. It remains unclear whether many comments from the public deliver better grounds for making decisions concerning individual projects. Additionally, it can be questioned whether the EIA process is the right venue for such extensive paperwork. On the other hand, some have argued that the Icelandic public is prevented from influencing decisions regarding big projects which may affect the quality of their lives.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">This experience gives reason and basis for development of a framework for public participation in the Icelandic EIA process. Its purpose should be a smooth development pathway, not to halt but to streamline a project. This framework could also take into consideration the different nature of projects.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The yes or no answer to a geothermal development question should be answered in a master plan, on national or regional basis and through strategic environmental assessment process (SEA). Land use policy should not be the challenge for the developers of individual projects.</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.2<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Information</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The issuing of geothermal research exploration permits and utilization permits must be based on reliable and detailed information about the projected impact the proposed project may have on the environment (Goff, 2000).</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.2.1<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Geothermal Data and Sustainability</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The management of geothermal energy as a natural resource is a vital issue in the EIA process. The assessment of sustainable use is a difficult task and controversy is among scientists, government agencies and developers how this is best accomplished. The conventional approach for the operation of a geothermal power plant is to increase steam production in steps while monitoring the effects on the reservoir. Developers’ point of view may be that in order to find out the long term capacity, fluid dynamics and thermodynamics of the reservoir it is necessary to tap the reservoir to such an extent and for a long enough period of time in order to get reliable response of reservoir variables for adjusting the reservoir model. Whereas this exercise is based on actual field trials for a long period of time with, in a way unforeseen results and uncertainty, it raises the question how to define a sustainable harnessing of the reservoir. Government officials, issuing permits, need to base their decisions on data at a very early stage of the project. They are responsible for the criteria for sustainable resource management. Presented with data, that shows pressure decline in the geothermal reservoir and pressure rise in the upper part of the system i.e. development of a steam cap, have created debate between parties on how and if to harness the geothermal reservoir.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">In the EIA process for geothermal projects, this debate has become a larger part of the EIA deliberation. The knowledge and expertise of the nature and utilization of geothermal fields is limited to few professionals but the EIA process is intended to give the public the opportunity to follow this discussion. Everyone can reveal their opinion on this issue during the EIA process but only few scientists have the grounds to build their opinion on. Therefore, the scientific data, presented in the EIA and the debate between the geothermal specialists, may cause difficulty for public officials to understand and to make an informed decision.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This makes the point that for the purpose of public participation in the EIA process, data must be presented in a clear and simple way. But this may be difficult due to the dynamic and unpredictable nature of the geothermal reservoir, as noted in chapter 3.</span></p> <p class="MsoList3" style="margin-left:.25in;layout-grid-mode:char"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Therefore, the dialogue on whether the proposed resource harnessing can be considered sustainable, can only reach a certain point in the EIA process. The decision on whether a utilization permit or a harnessing permit is granted is not based on the EIA process but is the result of the communication of the developer and the Ministry of industry, energy and tourism / National Energy Authority (table 1). A development permit however is based on the EIA and the land use planning.</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.2.2<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Geological Formations</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Geological formations have been a key environmental factor</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">in the Icelandic EIA’s for geothermal projects. This is due to</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">the fact that geothermal activity is commonly associated</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">with volcanic activity, which is the source or origin of</span></p> <p class="MsoList3"><span style="font-family:Arial;">geological formations. Many of these formations are</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>protected by the Nature Conservation Act, as landscapes </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and ecosystems. This applies to volcanic craters, pseudo </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>craters and lava fields, as well as surface geothermal deposits </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-family:Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>(sinter and travertine), 100 m2 or more in area.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Most geothermal developments influence to a certain degree the countenance of the landscape, i.e. the broad appearance of the landscape changes due to the alien facilities installed. Roads, production well heads, surface pipelines and buildings are examples of these aliens in nature.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Thanks to a technical development, the directional drilled wells have increased the flexibility in site selection for drilling. During the EIA process, this enables discussions between developers and geoscientists about the optimum locations and optimum numbers of well pads with associated service roads in order to minimize the environmental impact of the project.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Harnessing geothermal reservoirs causing pressure decline can change geothermal activity on the surface, causing geysers and </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">hot springs</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> to disappear or be transformed into fumaroles (Kristmannsdóttir and Ármannsson, 2003). This man made impact can be hard to distinguish from natural changes and can also happen in the course of seismicity. In the EIA it has been classified as indirect effect and is subject to great uncertainty.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">This indirect impact due to tapping geothermal fluid out of the reservoir has called for development of mitigation measures like reinjection of geothermal fluid, establishing controlled and balanced harnessing of on the one hand the fluid dominated reservoir and on the other hand the steam cap once it is developed and proper monitoring of surface activity.</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.2.3<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Geothermal Ecosystems</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Ecosystems in geothermal areas are different from the surrounding ecosystems. These ecosystems can be considered unique in terms of biological diversity. They contain rare species of plants and moss, the microbial life in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">hot springs</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> is very diverse and this also applies to the invertebrate species. Warm creek, originating from a hot spring, is different habitat than a cold creek close by.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Consequently it also has different species composition.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Geothermal development usually does not cause direct disturbance in these ecosystems. Directional drilling has also allowed for the protection of both fragile ecosystems as for rare geological formations. Nevertheless, the indirect effect on </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">hot springs</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> that may be caused by the geothermal harnessing, may lead to changes in these ecosystems.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In recent EIA processes much attention has been given to this derivative impact on geothermal ecosystems. It can be argued that due to great uncertainty in predicting the effect of geothermal operations on </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">hot springs</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> this should not be given much weight in the EIA. On the other hand, these ecosystems are very susceptible and can be considered very important as components in Earths’ biodiversity.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">It is also worth mentioning that the thermo files can be a valuable resource for the bio industry like the blue green algae, cultivated at the Blue Lagoon.</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.2.4<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Tourism and Recreation</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">As mentioned above, geothermal exploration usually takes place in pristine areas characterized by volcanic activity.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Many of these sites are categorized as of natural interest according to the Act of Nature Conservation and are popular as tourist destinations. Areas with good prospects for geothermal development are commonly popular as tourist destinations (Noorollahi and Yousefi, 2003). This has to some extent placed the tourist industry and the energy industry on opposite sides. The tourist industry claiming, <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>geothermal development, including noise, surface<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>disturbances and pipelines, will cause negative impact in popular tourist destinations. The geothermal developers on the other hand claiming the effect above ground occupying relatively confined area will be minor and that the tourist industry can´t claim any land use rights in these areas. The developers argue that gained experience proofs that visitor centers with educating exhibitions of the power plants and professionally guided tours attract every year thousands of visitors and therefore the geothermal installations can support the tourist industry.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Through consultation and problem solving some of these disputes can be resolved in the EIA process. This has been done through mitigation measures like minimizing visibility of buildings and pipelines, placing well pads far away from hiking trails, drilling many holes from each well pad and improving tourist facilities and hiking trails.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Opinion poll conducted in the Reykjanes area in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> has revealed positive view among tourists and recreational people towards geothermal power plants (Guðmundsson, 2008). When asked about steam released from a geothermal power plant the response was also positive. On the other hand, when asked about well sites and pipelines, the view was rather negative.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Kristmannsdóttir and Ármannsson (2003) also point out that there are not only negative effects of geothermal utilization to tourism. One of the most striking examples is the Blue Lagoon in Svartsengi high-temperature field, where a geothermal effluent pond is now one of </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">’s most renowned tourist landmarks. Dumping water in this way would probably not be allowed today. Experience also shows that geothermal power plants attract tourists, scientists and students.</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">6.2.5<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>Uncertainty</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">As noted above there is certain degree of uncertainty regarding the imposed impact caused by harnessing of the geothermal reservoir on geothermal ecosystems and geothermal activity on the surface? The dynamic nature of the resource makes it even harder to identify human induces effects.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">During the EIA process the ecosystems and the geothermal surface activity are usually identified and in the EIS it is stated that there may be some risk of negative impact caused by the project. In the recent projects, the developer is made fully accountable for this possible, indirect impact. This is partly based on the Precautionary Principle, which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. Instead of reaching consensus of lowering this risk by using mitigating measures like reinjection, this uncertainty has been used as grounds to halt further development. A study is being prepared to analyze and discuss how to apply uncertainty in the geothermal EIA cases.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">7.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>CONCLUSION</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The EIA process in </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iceland</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> is in continuous progress. Due to the dynamic nature of the geothermal resource, developers cannot at an early stage of development give decisive information on the scope of a given project, exact location of facilities and geothermal fluid extraction rate. Therefore one has endeavored to develop the projects in steps. This is not common for other EIA projects, and has caused some debate how to handle in the Icelandic EIA.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">This also applies to the uncertainty of the environmental impact of geothermal development since all geothermal areas are dynamic in nature, causing natural fluctuations in surface activity and geothermal habitats.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The Icelandic EIA process needs to be further developed regarding geothermal development. Exploration zones must be defined in national and/or master plans so that adequate profile of the resource can be projected. Utilization zones also have to be defined adequately in master plans. This can include certain environmental conditions with regard to development, but must allow for some room for the developer to respond to information gathered from the reservoir.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The EIA process should evaluate the learning and experience gained from exploration and harnessing which can be of great value for research and development units, schools, educative tourism and the geothermal industry worldwide.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">It must be looked into whether the grade scale used to assess the impact should be adapted further to fit for geothermal projects. A clear procedure must be set up how the grades are weighed together and how the weighted grade shall be used to arrive at the final decision in the EIS.</span></p> <p class="MsoListContinue"><span style="font-family:Arial;">The EIA has created some vital benefits such as broad consultation and created new guidelines for the development of geothermal projects. It is important for all actors in the EIA process to learn from the experience gained from preceding steps and to improve the EIA process in general for geothermal projects, especially how to discuss and assess the uncertainty that is involved with all such projects and the complicated and diverse scientific data that the EIA decision is based on.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">8.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>REFERENCES</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Goff, S., 2000. The effective use of environmental impact</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">assessments (EIAs) for geothermal development</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">projects. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">2000. </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Kyushu</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> – </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Tohoku</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">, </span><span style="font-family:Arial;">Japan</span><span style="font-family:Arial;">, May 28 – June 10.</span></p> <p class="MsoList2"><span style="font-family:Arial;">597-600</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Guðmundsson R., 2008. Ferdamenn og utivistarfolk a Reykjanesi 2007 (Tourists and Recreational People in Reykjanes 2007). Samantekt unnin fyrir VSO Consulting.RRF. 20 bls. In Icelandic.</span></p> <h2><span style="font-size:12.0pt;">Isaksson, K., T. Richardson and K. Olsson, 2009. From</span></h2> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">consultation to deliberation? Tracing deliberative</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">norms in EIA frameworks in Swedish roads planning.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Volume</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">29, Issue 5, September 2009, Pages 295-304.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Kristmannsdottir, H. and H. Armannsson, 2003.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Environmental aspects of geothermal energy utilization.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Geothermics 32, 451-461.</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Noorollahi, Y. and H. Yousefi, 2003. Preliminary</span></p> <p class="MsoList"><span style="font-family:Arial;">environmental impact assessment of a geothermal</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial;"> </span></p>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2011/12/eia-of-geothermal-projects-in-iceland.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-177033675663129514Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:59:00 +00002011-12-11T09:06:42.776-10:00Cheap Solar Power Here Now<h1 id="headline" class="story"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207132916.htm">Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds</a></span></h1><p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207132916.htm">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207132916.htm</a></p> <p id="first"><span class="date">ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2011)</span> — The public is being kept in the dark about the viability of solar photovoltaic energy, according to a study conducted at Queen's University.</p> <p>"Many analysts project a higher cost for solar photovoltaic energy because they don't consider recent technological advancements and price reductions," says Joshua Pearce, Adjunct Professor, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. "Older models for determining solar photovoltaic energy costs are too conservative."</p> <p>Dr. Pearce believes solar photovoltaic systems are near the "tipping point" where they can produce energy for about the same price other traditional sources of energy.</p> <p>Analysts look at many variables to determine the cost of solar photovoltaic systems for consumers, including installation and maintenance costs, finance charges, the system's life expectancy, and the amount of electricity it generates.</p> <p>Dr. Pearce says some studies don't consider the 70 per cent reduction in the cost of solar panels since 2009 . Furthermore, he says research now shows the productivity of top-of-the-line solar panels only drops between 0.1 and 0.2 percent annually, which is much less than the one per cent used in many cost analyses.</p> <p>Equipment costs are determined based on dollars per watt of electricity produced. One 2010 study estimated the this cost at $7.61, while a 2003 study set the amount at $4.16. According to Dr. Pearce, the real cost in 2011 is under $1 per watt for solar panels purchased in bulk on the global market, though he says system and installation costs vary widely.</p> <p>Dr. Pearce has created a calculator program available for download online that can be used to determine the true costs of solar energy.</p> <p>The Queen's study was co-authored by grad students Kadra Branker and Michael Pathak and published in the December edition of <em>Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.</em></p><strong>Story Source:</strong> <blockquote><p>The above story is reprinted from <a target="_blank" href="http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/solar-power-much-cheaper-produce-most-analysts-realize-study-finds" rel="nofollow">materials</a> provided by <a target="_blank" href="http://www.queensu.ca/" rel="nofollow" class="blue"><strong><span id="source">Queen's University</span></strong></a>. </p> <p><em>Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.</em></p></blockquote> <hr /> <p><strong>Journal Reference</strong>:</p> <ol style="margin: 5px 0 5px 18px; padding: 0;"><li>K. Branker, M.J.M. Pathak, J.M. Pearce. <strong>A review of solar photovoltaic levelized cost of electricity</strong>. <em>Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews</em>, 2011; 15 (9): 4470 DOI: <a target="_blank" href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.104" rel="nofollow">10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.104</a></li></ol>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2011/12/cheap-solar-power-here-now.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-7063612121952501765Tue, 08 Nov 2011 06:24:00 +00002011-11-07T20:27:53.722-10:00The Ins and Outs of Solar Photovoltaics<h2 class="full"><a href="http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2011/11/07/record-breaking-solar-cell-performances/">Berkeley Lab Research Sparks Record-Breaking Solar Cell Performances</a></h2> <div id="time">http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2011/11/07/record-breaking-solar-cell-performances/<br /><br />November 07, 2011</div><p>Theoretical research by scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) has led to record-breaking sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiencies in solar cells. The researchers showed that, contrary to conventional scientific wisdom, the key to boosting solar cell efficiency is not absorbing more photons but emitting more photons.</p> <p>“A great solar cell also needs to be a great Light Emitting Diode,” says Eli Yablonovitch, the Berkeley Lab electrical engineer who led this research. “This is counter-intuitive. Why should a solar cell be emitting photons? What we demonstrated is that the better a solar cell is at emitting photons, the higher its voltage and the greater the efficiency it can produce.”</p> <p>Yablonovitch holds joint appointments with Berkeley Lab’s Materials Sciences Division and the University of California (UC) Berkeley, where he is the James and Katherine Lau Chair in Engineering, and also directs the NSF Center for Energy Efficient Electronics Science. He is the corresponding author of a paper describing this work titled “Intense Internal and External Fluorescence as Solar Cells Approach the Shockley-Queisser Efficiency Limit.” Co-authoring this paper with Yablonovitch were Owen Miller of Berkeley Lab, and Sarah Kurtz, at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.</p> <p>In their paper, Yablonovitch, Miller and Kurtz describe how external fluorescence is the key to approaching the theoretical maximum efficiency at which a solar cell can convert sunlight into electricity. This theoretical efficiency, called the Shockley-Queisser efficiency limit (SQ Limit), measures approximately 33.5-percent for a single p-n junction solar cell. This means that if a solar cell collects 1,000 Watts per square meter of solar energy, the most electricity it could produce would be about 335 Watts per square meter.</p> <p>Calculations by Miller, who is a member of Yablonovitch’s research group, showed that the semiconductor gallium arsenide is capable of reaching the SQ Limit. Based on this work, a private company co-founded by Yablonovitch, Alta Devices Inc., has been able to fabricate solar cells from gallium arsenide that have achieved a record conversion efficiency of 28.4 percent.</p> <p>“Owen Miller provided an accurate theory on how to reach the SQ Limit that for the first time included external fluorescence efficiency,” Yablonovitch says. “His calculations for gallium arsenide showed that external fluorescence provides the voltage boost that Alta researchers subsequently observed.”</p> <div id="attachment_18893" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 270px"><a href="http://newscenter.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/Yablonovitch-and-Miller.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-18893" title="Yablonovitch and Miller" src="http://newscenter.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/Yablonovitch-and-Miller-300x240.jpg" alt="Berkeley Lab’s Eli Yablonovitch (left) and Owen Miller showed that counter-intuitively, a great solar cell also needs to be a great Light Emitting Diode. (Photo by Roy Kaltschmidt, Berkeley Lab)" height="208" width="260" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Berkeley Lab’s Eli Yablonovitch (left) and Owen Miller showed that counter-intuitively, a great solar cell also needs to be a great Light Emitting Diode. (Photo by Roy Kaltschmidt, Berkeley Lab)</p></div> <p>Solar or photovoltaic cells represent one of the best possible technologies for providing an absolutely clean and virtually inexhaustible source of electricity. However, for this dream to be realized, solar cells must be able to efficiently and cost-competitively convert sunlight into electricity. They must also be far less expensive to make.</p> <p>The most efficient solar cells in commercial use today are made from monocrystalline silicon wafers and typically reach a conversion efficiency of about 23-percent. High grade silicon is an expensive semiconductor but is a weak collector of photons. Gallium arsenide, although even more expensive than silicon, is more proficient at absorbing photons, which means much less material is needed to make a solar cell.</p> <p>“Gallium arsenide absorbs photons 10,000 times more strongly than silicon for a given thickness but is not 10,000 times more expensive,” says Yablonovitch. “Based on performance, it is the ideal material for making solar cells.”</p> <p>Past efforts to boost the conversion efficiency of solar cells focused on increasing the number of photons that a cell absorbs. Absorbed sunlight in a solar cell produces electrons that must be extracted from the cell as electricity. Those electrons that are not extracted fast enough, decay and release their energy. If that energy is released as heat, it reduces the solar cell’s power output. Miller’s calculations showed that if this released energy exits the cell as external fluorescence, it would boost the cell’s output voltage.</p> <p>“This is the central counter-intuitive result that permitted efficiency records to be broken,” Yablonovitch says.</p> <div id="attachment_18897" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 225px"><a href="http://newscenter.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/Yablonovitch-Alta.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-18897" title="Yablonovitch Alta" src="http://newscenter.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/Yablonovitch-Alta-215x300.jpg" alt="Thin film solar cells fabricated from gallium arsenide have achieved a record sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency of 28.4 percent. (Image courtesy of Alta Devices, Inc.)" height="300" width="215" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Thin film solar cells fabricated from gallium arsenide have achieved a record sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency of 28.4 percent. (Image courtesy of Alta Devices, Inc.)</p></div> <p>As Miller explains, “In the open-circuit condition of a solar cell, electrons have no place to go so they build up in density and, ideally, emit external fluorescence that exactly balances the incoming sunlight. As an indicator of low internal optical losses, efficient external fluorescence is a necessity for approaching the SQ Limit.”</p> <p>Using a single-crystal thin film technology developed earlier by Yablonovitch, called “epitaxial liftoff,” Alta Devices was able to fabricate solar cells based on gallium arsenide that not only smashed previous solar conversion efficiency records, but can be produced at well below the cost of any other solar cell technology. Alta Devices expects to have gallium arsenide solar panels on the market within a year.</p> <p>“The SQ Limit is still the foundation of solar cell technology,” says Yablonovitch. “However, the physics of light extraction and external fluorescence are clearly relevant for high performance solar cells.”</p> <p>Yablonovitch believes that the theoretical work by he and his co-authors, in combination with the performance demonstrations at Alta Devices, could dramatically change the future of solar cells.</p> <p>“We’re going to be living in a world where solar panels are very cheap and very efficient,” Yablonovitch says.</p> <p>This research was funded by a grant from DOE’s Light-Material Interactions in Energy Conversion Energy Frontier Research Center (LMI-EFRC).</p> <p style="text-align: center;"># # #</p> <p>Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory addresses the world’s most urgent scientific challenges by advancing sustainable energy, protecting human health, creating new materials, and revealing the origin and fate of the universe. Founded in 1931, Berkeley Lab’s scientific expertise has been recognized with 13 Nobel prizes. The University of California manages Berkeley Lab for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. For more, visit <a href="http://www.lbl.gov/" target="_blank">www.lbl.gov</a>.</p> <p><strong>Additional Information</strong></p> <p>For more information about the research of Eli Yablonovitch, visit the Website at <a href="http://optoelectronics.eecs.berkeley.edu/">http://optoelectronics.eecs.berkeley.edu/</a></p> <p>For more information about the LMI-EFRC, visit the Website at<a href="http://www.lmi.caltech.edu/"> http://www.lmi.caltech.edu/</a></p> <p>For more information about Alta Devices, Inc., visit the Website at <a href="https://www.altadevices.com/">https://www.altadevices.com/</a></p>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2011/11/ins-and-outs-of-solar-photovoltaics.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-7594371394733958573Sat, 05 Nov 2011 04:08:00 +00002011-11-04T18:14:51.018-10:00Solar To Get Better and Cheaperhttp://scienceprogress.org/2011/10/new-solar-technology-you-never-heard-of/<br /><br /><span class="kicker">PROCESS INNOVATION</span> <h1>The Coolest New Solar Manufacturing Technology You’ve Never Heard Of</h1> <h2>Publicly Funded Research Leads to Breakthrough in Solar Cell Production</h2> <div class="widestoryphoto"> <img style="width: 411px; height: 273px;" src="http://scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/OpticalFurnace_660.gif" alt="" /> <span class="credit"><br />SOURCE: NREL/Dennis Schroeder</span> <span class="caption">The cavity inside the Solar Optical Furnace glows white hot during a simulated firing of a solar cell.</span> </div> <div class="byline"><a href="http://scienceprogress.org/2011/10/new-solar-technology-you-never-heard-of/#" title="Send to Facebook_like" class="addthis_button_facebook_like at300b"><span></span></a> <a href="http://scienceprogress.org/2011/10/new-solar-technology-you-never-heard-of/#" class="addthis_button_compact at300m"><span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_compact"></span></a> <a href="http://scienceprogress.org/2011/10/new-solar-technology-you-never-heard-of/#" title="Email" class="addthis_button_email at300b"><span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_email"></span></a> <a href="http://scienceprogress.org/2011/10/new-solar-technology-you-never-heard-of/#" title="Print" class="addthis_button_print at300b"><span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_print"></span></a><span class="author"><br />By <a href="http://scienceprogress.org/author/lauren-simenauer/" title="Posts by Lauren Simenauer" rel="author">Lauren Simenauer</a> and <a href="http://scienceprogress.org/author/spool/" title="Posts by Sean Pool" rel="author">Sean Pool</a> | <span class="timestamp">Friday, October 28th, 2011</span> </span></div> <p>Too often, when talking about research and innovation on clean energy technologies, policymakers, pundits, and the media tend to assume that the biggest breakthrough will come from a completely novel technology. The discovery of some new and sexy clean energy technology will suddenly change the game and make clean energy abundant and affordable overnight.</p> <p>In practice that rarely happens. A more likely scenario is that humble, behind-the-scenes “process innovations” will continue to increase the efficiency and drive down the costs of manufacturing the technologies we already know work.</p> <p>The Department of Energy has recently completed testing on just such a humble breakthrough. <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/news/features/feature_detail.cfm/feature_id=1629">The Optical Cavity Furnace</a> is a new piece of equipment for making solar cells that is about to rock the photovoltaic industry by slashing costs and increasing efficiency. The news should not just excite tech nerds—by reducing the cost of producing solar cells by nearly three-quarters, this new technology represents another big step on the path to making clean energy the cheap kind of energy.</p> <p>Here’s how it works. By using optics to more efficiently focus visible and infrared light, the Optical Cavity Furnace can heat silicon wafers used in solar cell production much more precisely and uniformly than previous forms of solar cell manufacture. The resulting solar cells are stronger, more efficient, and have fewer impurities. The National Renewable Energy Lab, or NREL, the DOE office responsible for the research, and a corporate partner AOS Inc. are now working to bring this technology to scale. The partners plan to build an industrial-scale Optical Cavity Furnace capable of producing 1,200 highly efficient solar cells per hour. NREL has cooperative research agreements with many of the country’s biggest solar cell producers.</p> <p>Even better, in addition to producing solar cells more reliably, quickly, and therefore cheaply, the Optical Cavity Furnace itself is cheaper than traditional equipment used to produce cells. As the cost of manufacturing solar cells goes down, elementary economics suggests the accessibility of solar cells will soar. Then it’s a matter of harnessing their power in a myriad of other industries in a clean energy domino effect.</p> <p>The <a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/pdfs/dpw_white_paper.pdf">White House</a> has challenged the solar industry to produce clean electricity at $1 per watt. It has also set a national goal to achieve 80 percent clean energy use by 2035. Though some tout the idea that radically new breakthroughs in energy technology are needed to achieve these goals, incremental process innovation in existing technologies is perhaps a more important part of the solution. Innovations like the Optical Cavity Furnace that make the technologies we already know about cheaper, easier to produce, and more abundant can have game-changing impacts on bringing clean energy to scale.</p> <p>The concept of “<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/09/241120/solar-is-ready-now-%E2%80%9Cferocious-cost-reductions-make-solar-pv-competitive/">grid parity</a>”—the point at which generating electricity from alternate energy sources is equivalent in cost to generating electricity from grid power—underlies the feasibility of using solar cells as a resource. Due to the competing forces of supply and demand, consumers likely will not choose clean energy until it is cheap and convenient. The good news is that researchers are racing toward that goal at an <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/16/321131/solar-fastest-growing-industry-in-america-and-made-record-cost-reductions/">impressive rate</a>.</p> <p>In fact, the cost of photovoltaic, or PV, cells had already <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/06/261550/solar-pv-system-cost-reductions/">fallen 50 percent</a> in the past two years prior to the DOE announcement. A <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Screen-shot-2011-06-08-at-3.20.01-PM.png">June 2011 projection</a> predicted PV module prices would hit the goal of $1 per watt by 2013; now the finish line of the proverbial “race to the bottom” seems even more imminent.</p> <p>For consumers weary of the daily media promises of a cure-all solution to climate change, consider this: Deflating prices of solar cell manufacturing <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Screen-shot-2011-07-05-at-2.46.24-PM.png">mirror the downward price slope</a> of other technologies we now take for granted, like cell phones and DVD players. One important driver of those price declines is process innovation. And the government, instead of being an obstacle to competition, <a href="http://scienceprogress.org/2011/10/2011/10/high-risk-higher-reward/">is uniquely poised</a> to foster it, as evidenced by the new DOE solar furnace. In addition to the work being done at the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, dozens of other federal labs across the country under the DOE Office of Science, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships are helping push the bounds of process innovation in clean energy manufacturing.</p> <p>The notion that science or innovation alone can solve our energy and climate challenges may seem like the overoptimistic ramblings of an enthusiastic technocrat. Yet new technologies like the Optical Cavity Furnace are piling up, creating a stronger and stronger rationale for increased federal investment in innovation. Through process innovation, we increase efficiency and lower costs, virtually negating the common arguments against climate-conscious energy policy. Like it or not, most consumers still make energy choices based on the impact those choices have on their wallets rather than based on the impact they have on the environment. With a vibrant national research ecosystem that fosters process innovation, before we know it, more and more consumers will be choosing clean energy not because it is the socially conscious choice but because it’s the cost-effective choice.</p> <p> </p>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2011/11/solar-to-get-better-and-cheaper.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-6937334517298647638Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:47:00 +00002011-07-21T08:53:19.921-10:00The Best Centralized Solar Solution<h2><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/"><span style="font-size:100%;">Twice the height of the Empire State - EnviroMission plans massive solar tower for Arizona</span></a></h2><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/">http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/</a><br /> <div class="summary_details_left"> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">By <a href="http://www.gizmag.com/author/loz-blain/" rel="author">Loz Blain</a></span></p> <p><em>11:03 July 21, 2011</em></p> </div> <div class="summary_details_right"> <p><img src="http://www.gizmag.com/images/icons/splashyIcons/image_modernist.png" alt="" /> <a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138290/">24 Pictures</a></p> </div> <div id="hero_box" style="width: 530px;"> <a id="hero_link" href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138290/"> <img style="width: 348px; height: 195px;" src="http://images.gizmag.com/hero/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-power.jpg" title="EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015" alt="EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015" border="0" /></a><div class="pic_caption"> <p>EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015</p> <strong><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138290/" class="orange">Image Gallery</a> (24 images)</strong> </div> </div> <p> </p><p>An ambitious solar energy project on a massive scale is about to get underway in the Arizona desert. EnviroMission is undergoing land acquisition and site-specific engineering to build its first full-scale solar tower - and when we say full-scale, we mean it! The mammoth 800-plus meter (2625 ft) tall tower will instantly become one of the world's tallest buildings. Its 200-megawatt power generation capacity will reliably feed the grid with enough power for 150,000 US homes, and once it's built, it can be expected to more or less sit there producing clean, renewable power with virtually no maintenance until it's more than 80 years old. In the video after the jump, EnviroMission CEO Roger Davey explains the solar tower technology, the Arizona project and why he couldn't get it built at home in Australia.</p> <ul id="gallery_images"><li><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138297/" class="image"><img src="http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_tn/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-power-7.jpg" title="EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015" alt="EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015" /></a></li><li><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138298/" class="image"><img src="http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_tn/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-power-8.jpg" title="EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015" alt="EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015" /></a></li><li><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138295/" class="image"><img src="http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_tn/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-power-5.jpg" title="EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015" alt="EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015" /></a></li><li><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138294/" class="image"><img src="http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_tn/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-power-4.jpg" title="EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015" alt="EnviroMission's solar tower: coming to Arizona in 2015" /></a></li><li id="view_all"><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138290/" class="blue">View all<br /></a></li></ul> <h2>How Solar Towers Work</h2> Enviromission's solar tower is a simple idea taken to gigantic proportions. The sun beats down on a large covered greenhouse area at the bottom, warming the air underneath it. Hot air wants to rise, so there's a central point for it to rush towards and escape; the tower in the middle. And there's a bunch of turbines at the base of the tower that generate electricity from that natural updraft. <p>It's hard to envisage that sort of system working effectively until you tweak the temperature variables and scale the whole thing up. Put this tower in a hot desert area, where the daytime surface temperature sits at around 40 degrees Celsius (104 F), and add in the greenhouse effect and you've got a temperature under your collector somewhere around 80-90 degrees (176-194 F). Scale your collector greenhouse out to a several hundred-meter radius around the tower, and you're generating a substantial volume of hot air.</p> <p>Then, raise that tower up so that it's hundreds of meters in the air - because for every hundred metres you go up from the surface, the ambient temperature drops by about 1 degree. The greater the temperature differential, the harder the tower sucks up that hot air at the bottom - and the more energy you can generate through the turbines.</p> <div style="width: 530px; height: 530px" class="article_img"><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138291/" target="_blank"><img src="http://images.gizmag.com/inline/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-power-1.jpg" width="530" /></a></div> <ul>The advantages of this kind of power source are clear: <li>Because it works on temperature differential, not absolute temperature, it works in any weather;</li><li>Because the heat of the day warms the ground up so much, it continues working at night;</li><li>Because you want large tracts of hot, dry land for best results, you can build it on more or less useless land in the desert;</li><li>It requires virtually no maintenance - apart from a bit of turbine servicing now and then, the tower "just works" once it's going, and lasts as long as its structure stays standing;</li><li>It uses no 'feed stock' - no coal, no uranium, nothing but air and sunlight;</li><li>It emits absolutely no pollution - the only emission is warm air at the top of the tower. In fact, because you're creating a greenhouse underneath, it actually turns out to be remarkably good for growing vegetation under there.</li></ul><div style="width: 530px; height: 530px" class="article_img"><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138290/" target="_blank"><img src="http://images.gizmag.com/inline/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-power-0.jpg" width="530" /></a></div> <h2>The Arizona Project</h2> <p>While this is not the first solar tower that has been built (a small-scale test rig in Spain proved the technology more than a decade ago) EnviroMission has chosen to build its first full-scale power plant in the deserts of Arizona, USA.</p> <p>The Arizona tower will be a staggering 800 metres or so tall - just 30 meters shorter than the colossal Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world's tallest man-made structure. To put that in context - it will stand more than double the height of the Empire State building in New York City, and it'll be as much as 130 meters in diameter at the top. Truly a gigantic structure.</p> <p>Currently undergoing site-specific engineering and land acquisition, EnviroMission estimates the tower will cost around US$750 million to build. It will generate a peak of 200 megawatts, and run at an efficiency of around 60% - vastly more efficient and reliable than other renewable energy sources.</p> <p>The output has already been pre-sold - the Southern California Public Power Authority recently signed a 30-year power purchase agreement with EnviroMission that will effectively allow the tower to provide enough energy for an estimated 150,000 US homes. Financial modelling projects that the tower will pay off its purchase price in just 11 years - and the engineering team are shooting for a structure that will stand for 80 years or more.</p> <div style="width: 374px; height: 528px" class="article_img"><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/picture/138318/" target="_blank"><img src="http://images.gizmag.com/inline/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-power-23.jpg" width="374" /></a></div> <p>Considering that a large city like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Department_of_Water_and_Power#Power_system" target="_blank">Los Angeles requires total power in the region of 7,200 megawatts</a>, you'd have to build a few dozen solar towers up to the same size as the Arizona project if you wanted to completely replace the existing, primarily coal-based energy supply for that city's 3.7 million-odd residents. So it's not an instant solution - but then, its short projected payback period and virtually zero operating costs make it a very sound economic proposition that competes favorably against other renewable sources.</p> <p>Under the terms of the pre-purchase agreement, the Arizona tower is due to begin delivering power at the start of 2015. Watch this space!</p><p><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/">http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/ </a><br /></p>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2011/07/best-centralized-solar-solution.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-505492736984232506Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:41:00 +00002011-04-22T12:44:10.948-10:00Solar Adds Value To Home<h1 id="headline" class="story"><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110421122408.htm"><span style="font-size:100%;">Photovoltaic Systems Boost the Sales Price of California Homes</span></a></h1> <p id="first"><span class="date">ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2011)</span> — New research by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory finds strong evidence that homes with solar photovoltaic (PV) systems sell for a premium over homes without solar systems.</p> <p>"We find compelling evidence that solar PV systems in California have boosted home sales prices," says the lead author Ben Hoen, a researcher at Berkeley Lab. "These average sales price premiums appear to be comparable with the average investment that homeowners have made to install PV systems in California, and of course homeowners also benefit from energy bill savings after PV system installation and prior to home sale."</p> <p>The research finds that homes with PV in California have sold for a premium, expressed in dollars per watt of installed PV, of approximately $3.90 to $6.40/watt. This corresponds to an average home sales price premium of approximately $17,000 for a relatively new 3,100 watt PV system (the average size of PV systems in the Berkeley Lab dataset), and compares to an average investment that homeowners have made to install PV systems in California of approximately $5/W over the 2001-2009 period.</p> <p>"This is a sizeable effect," says Ryan Wiser, a Berkeley Lab scientist and co-author. "This research might influence the decisions of homeowners considering installing a PV system and of home buyers considering buying a home with PV already installed. Even new home builders that are contemplating PV as a component of their homes can benefit from this research."</p> <p>Approximately 2,100 megawatts (MW) of grid-connected solar PV have been installed in the U.S. California has been and continues to be the country's largest market for PV, with nearly 1,000 MW of installed capacity. California is also approaching 100,000 individual PV systems installed, more than 90% of which are residential. Though an increasing number of homes with PV systems have sold, relatively little research has been performed to estimate the impacts of those PV systems on home sales prices.</p> <p>The Berkeley Lab research is the first to empirically explore the existence and magnitude of residential PV sales price impacts across a large number of homes and over a wide geographic area. The research analyzed a dataset of more than 72,000 California homes that sold from 2000 through mid-2009, approximately 2,000 of which had a PV system at the time of sale. "This is the most comprehensive and data-rich analysis to date of the potential influence of PV systems on home sales prices," says co-author and San Diego State University Economics Department Chair Mark Thayer.</p> <p>The research controlled for a large number of factors that might influence results, such as housing market fluctuations, neighborhood effects, the age of the home, and the size of the home and the parcel on which it was located. The resulting premiums associated with PV systems were consistent across a large number of model specifications and robustness tests.</p> <p>The research also shows that, as PV systems age, the premium enjoyed at the time of home sale decreases. Additionally, existing homes with PV systems are found to have commanded a larger sales price premium than new homes with similarly sized PV systems.</p> <p>"One reason for the disparity between existing and new homes with PV might be that new home builders also gain value from PV as a market differentiator that speeds the home sales process, a factor not analyzed in the Berkeley Lab study," says Berkeley Lab researcher and co-author Peter Cappers. "More research is warranted to better understand these and related impacts."</p> <p>This work was supported by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Solar Energy Technologies Program) of the U.S. Department of Energy, by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and by the Clean Energy States Alliance.</p> <p>Download the full report, <a target="_blank" href="http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-4476e.pdf">“An Analysis of the Effects of Residential Photovoltaic Energy Systems on Home Sales Prices in California”</a></p><div style="float: right; width: 150px; padding: 10px 50px 0 0; margin: 0"> <div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style"> <a title="Send to Facebook" target="_blank" href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&amp;winname=addthis&amp;pub=sciencedaily&amp;source=tbx-250&amp;lng=en-US&amp;s=facebook&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2011%2F04%2F110421122408.htm&amp;title=Photovoltaic%20systems%20boost%20the%20sales%20price%20of%20California%20homes&amp;ate=AT-sciencedaily/-/-/4db1abb45fa7e8b0/1&amp;uid=4db1abb4681e104d&amp;CXNID=2000001.5215456080540439074NXC&amp;pre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2F&amp;tt=0" class="addthis_button_facebook at300b"><span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_facebook"></span></a><a title="Email" class="addthis_button_email at300b"><span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_email"></span></a> <a title="Save to Favorites" class="addthis_button_favorites at300b"><span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_favorites"></span></a> <a title="Print" class="addthis_button_print at300b"><span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_print"></span></a><span class="addthis_separator"></span><a target="_blank" title="View more services" href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&amp;pub=sciencedaily" class="addthis_button_expanded at300m"><span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_expanded"></span></a> </div> </div> <hr /> <p><strong>Story Source:</strong></p> <blockquote>The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by Science<em>Daily</em> staff) from materials provided by <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lbl.gov/" rel="nofollow" class="blue"><strong><span id="source">DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory</span></strong></a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110421122408.htm">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110421122408.htm</a><br /><br /></blockquote>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2011/04/solar-adds-value-to-home.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1290809703489220260.post-9082800574360219241Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:39:00 +00002011-02-23T07:46:31.063-10:00All Energy From Solar in 20 Years?<div class="headline"><h1><a href="http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/481791/famed_futurist:_%22we_can_meet_all_our_energy_needs_from_solar_in_20_years%22?page=entire"><span style="font-size:100%;">Famed Futurist: "We Can Meet All Our Energy Needs from Solar in 20 Years"</span></a></h1></div> <div id="the_body" class="body_" style="margin: 10px 0px;"> <p>Ray Kurzweil is arguably the world's most famous futurist. He laid out the law of accelerating returns, which states that technology improves at exponential rates, and made a string of dead-on predictions about computing in the 80s -- that a computer would beat a man at chess by 1998, and that the world would link networks into some crazy globally connected system sometime in the mid-90s. Now, Kurzweil is talking solar. In <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-19-futurist-ray-kurzweil-isnt-worried-about-climate-change">an interview with Grist</a>, he explains why he's not worried about climate change, and how renewable energy sources will become dominant much, much sooner than we think.</p> <p><a name="more"></a></p> <p>He explains his techno-optimism to <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-19-futurist-ray-kurzweil-isnt-worried-about-climate-change">Grist</a>:</p> <blockquote>One of my primary theses is that information technologies grow exponentially in capability and power and bandwidth and so on. If you buy an iPhone today, it's twice as good as two years ago for half the cost. That is happening with solar energy -- it is doubling every two years. And it didn't start two years ago, it started 20 years ago. Every two years, we have twice as much solar energy in the world. Today, solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, and in most situations it still needs subsidies or special circumstances, but the costs are coming down rapidly ... we are only a few years away from parity. <p>So right now it's at half a percent of the world's energy. People tend to dismiss technologies when they are half a percent of the solution. But doubling every two years means it's only eight more doublings before it meets a 100 percent of the world's energy needs. So that's 16 years. We will increase our use of electricity during that period, so add another couple of doublings: In 20 years we'll be meeting all of our energy needs with solar, based on this trend which has already been underway for 20 years.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's some major optimism indeed -- unfortunately, even if the <em>technology</em> itself got good enough that quickly, it in no way accounts for the massive task of deploying enough solar farms fast enough to render coal and natural gas plants obsolete. Many scientists say, after all, that we're going to need to drastically scale down emissions in 10 years time before we irrevocably alter our climate.</p> <p>Furthermore, <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/03/debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-part-ii-breaking-the-technology-breakthrough-myth/">breakthroughs in clean energy technology</a> have not occurred at an analogous rate to information tech -- they're much rarer, for a variety of reasons.</p> <p>Finally, the most glaring miscalculation I think Kurzweil makes is that unlike the computing industry, there's an entrenched, powerful industrial opposition to clean energy that will actively work to stymie its advances whenever feasible in the political arena. Computers were developing into a wide open space in the market, with no comparable oppositional industry ready to compete with them -- the typewriter industry doesn't exactly have the same clout as the coal and oil industries. Perhaps if there wasn't a preexisting, artificially cheap energy source that was widely relied upon, and whose operators had access to major power levers, Kurzweil's time line could come true -- but since there is, we won't see the same kind of investment, excitement, and innovations in clean tech until use of dirty fuels is formally discouraged.</p> <p>Kurzeil is right that we <em>could</em> <a href="http://utopianist.com/2011/01/the-world-could-run-on-100-clean-energy-by-2030-using-existing-technology-video/">power the world with clean energy in 20 years.</a> But relying on technology alone isn't likely to get us there.</p> </div> By <span style="color: rgb(222, 73, 0);">Brian Merchant</span> | Sourced from <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/" style="color: rgb(222, 73, 0);"> Treehugger</a> <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/" style="color: rgb(222, 73, 0);"> </a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/481791/famed_futurist:_%22we_can_meet_all_our_energy_needs_from_solar_in_20_years%22?page=entire">http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/481791</a><br /><br /><div class="dsq-comment-header-meta-wrapper"> <cite id="dsq-cite-154182018" class="dsq-comment-cite"> <span id="dsq-author-user-154182018">Comment By Jonathan Cole<br /></span></cite><span class="dsq-comment-header-time"> </span> </div> <div id="dsq-comment-body-154182018" class="dsq-comment-body"> <div class="dsq-comment-message" id="dsq-comment-message-154182018"> For most of the past 30 years I have been living on solar and developing practical solar energy systems that provide energy for all of the modern amenities, are durable, low-maintenance and user-friendly. I never had a power outage or burned out even a light bulb.<br /><br />This technology, properly designed and installed already competes with the grid even without any subsidy. Why? Because once the equipment is installed, the fuel is free. Since a properly made system can last from 25 to 40 years, you save a lot of money on avoided fuel costs. I don't pay any electrical bill and am totally independent of the grid. I have all modern amenities.<br /><br />The reason Kurzweil is correct and the author of the article is dubious, is because the author has his facts wrong. Computers and the internet have had huge resistance from entrenched change-averse interests in the publishing, entertainment, telecommunications and other industries whose bottom lines are being destroyed by the new technologies.<br /><br />There is a way to do a complete end-run around the utility monopolies/oligarchies who are certainly dragging their feet in many instances. That is to create an integrated solar energy appliance that is mass-producible, just like the computer is a mass-producible integrated information processing appliance.<br /><br />That has yet to be done because the world is currently in a frenzy of speculation instead of productive investment. While a certain amount of speculation may play a healthy role in an economy, an absolutely uncontrolled speculative frenzy, destroys wealth and reduces the productivity required for progress.<br /><br />We need visionary investors who realize the importance of productive investment to support the development of these integrated solar appliances. Once a UL approved solar energy appliance is developed that can be plugged into the home with a minimum of red-tape, the power industry will be forced to join in or be rendered obsolete.<br /><br />And by the way, to do this requires nothing to be invented, only adapted and refined. So based on experience, knowledge and facts, Kuzweil's prediction is totally on track. Jonathan Cole, MBA <a href="http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://lightontheearth.blogspo...</a>/ </div> </div>http://lightontheearth.blogspot.com/2011/02/all-energy-from-solar-in-20-years.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Cole)0